The High Court dismissed the petition challenging two separate show cause notices for the same period, holding that distinct subject matters justify multiple notices under GST laws.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that Solar Power Generating Systems are movable property and not works contracts. It emphasized that the systems, though attached to a civil foundation, are not embedded for permanent beneficial enjoyment of the foundation. The supply was deemed a composite supply under Section 2(30) of the GST Act, taxable at 5%, invalidating the assessment order taxing it at 18% under works contract provisions.

The High Court quashed the GST order for FY 2018-19 due to non-service of physical or offline show cause notice. It held that cancellation of GST registration relieved the petitioner from accessing e-notices, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging Notification No. 56/2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, citing the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act.

The High Court quashed the rejection of a refund application under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, citing the CBIC notification dated 5th July 2022, which excluded the COVID-19 period from the limitation period. The matter is remanded for reprocessing.

The High Court accepted the appellant’s plea regarding incomplete migration of revised returns to the GST portal and directed the department to rectify the data discrepancy. The impugned order is set aside and a revised order is mandated.

This case addresses the jurisdictional authority of State GST officers to issue show cause notices under the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that, in the absence of a notification under Section 6(1), State GST officers lack jurisdiction for CGST actions. The Court upheld that cross-empowerment under Section 6(1) is inherent unless restricted by notification. Aligning with Delhi and Madras High Court precedents, the Court dismissed the writ petition, citing adequate statutory empowerment.

The court directed the respondent to reimburse the GST difference at 6% from January 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022 and pay interest for delays. The order aligns with a previous judgment ensuring parity in identical GST-related disputes.

The High Court condoned a 246-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, citing procedural anomalies in communication. It quashed the appellate authority’s dismissal for limitation and directed a fresh hearing on merits.

The High Court stayed further proceedings related to the show cause cum demand notice dated August 3, 2024, issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, pending the resolution of jurisdictional and procedural issues. The petitioner challenged the invocation of the extended limitation period and the reliance on GST Council deliberations as non-binding, emphasizing the product classification under Entry 181-A of Schedule I.

The High Court quashed the GST demand order issued under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, for failing to provide a mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4). The matter is remanded to the authority for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the petitioner to respond.

- The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under Section 74 of the CGST Act, holding that the issue of reclassification of services and tax evasion allegations are factual disputes. It directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107, emphasizing the non-exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction for disputed facts.