The court examined the relaxation of eligibility criteria for the appointment of a Technical Member (State) in GSTAT as per Section 110(1)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017. It upheld the state's request to relax the 25-year Group A service requirement, allowing experienced officers with equivalent government service.

The common issue raised in all these Writ Petitions is with regard to compliance of Section 169 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, (in short, `the Act`).

1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 passed in WP(C) No.3585/2024 [2024] 76 whereby this Court had held the Notification No. 56/2023-CT to be ultra vires, the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and accordingly set aside and quashed the said Notification.

That the Honble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner`s case and after going into the validity and legality thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the Notice in Form GST DRC-22 bearing

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the activity of the Petitioner issuing a corporate guarantee on behalf of its subsidiaries or related entities is not a “supply” under Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) and is not leviable to tax under Section 9 of the CGST Act. A further direction is sought that the impugned Circulars dated 27th October 2023 and 11th July 2024 as well as the impugned Rule 28 (2) of the CGST Rules and the impugned Notifications dated 26th October 2023 and 10th July 2024 are arbitrary and passed without the authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India.

The above Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking a declaration that the activity of a holding company providing a corporate guarantee to its subsidiary is not in the nature of “supply” and/or “supply of service” taxable under Section 9 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the CGST Act”). A further declaration is sought that the Respondents be restrained from collecting tax under Section 9 of the CGST Act on the activity of providing corporate guarantees to subsidiary companies. A challenge is also laid to the impugned circular dated 27th October 2023 under which the tax is sought to be levied and collected as unconstitutional, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 246A, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Since the notice dated 1st February 2024 has been issued to the Petitioner seeking certain information from the Petitioner for the period 1st July 2017 till March 2021 in relation to corporate guarantees given by the Petitioner, the said notice is also challenged.

This petition is directed against order dated 20.09.2024 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for assessment year 2020-21, however, prayer has been made that the respondent No. 2 be directed to issue a fresh notice and give opportunity of personal hearing to the successor proprietor/petitioner and to pass a fresh order thereafter.

The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3.

Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned ACSC for the State – respondents.

The petitioner contested an ex parte assessment order under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, issued posthumously against the deceased proprietor. The court quashed the order, directing fresh proceedings with the successor proprietor after proper notice and hearing.

The petitioner contested the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns for six months. The court ruled that the cancellation, based on grounds not mentioned in the notice, violated principles of natural justice and quashed the impugned orders.