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 quashed the GST order under Section 73 and dismissed the appeal under Section 75(4) due to non-compliance with the procedural requirement of granting a separate hearing opportunity, violating principles of natural justice.

Learned advocate Mr. Krutarth Desai for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Raj Tanna for the respondents.

Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

The High Court addressed the writ petition concerning an order under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, requiring the petitioner to pay Rs 92,28,444 for release of seized goods. It directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 while allowing provisional release of goods upon furnishing a bond and bank guarantee, ensuring procedural fairness.

The Bombay High Court addressed procedural lapses in issuing a show cause notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules. The petitioner alleged that their reply to the pre-consultation notice, submitted before the notice was issued, was ignored. The court observed that authorities must consider such replies before proceeding. While allowing hearings on the show cause notice, the court restrained authorities from passing an adjudication order until further review.

This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 20th December, 2024 in WPA 28649 of 2024 by which the writ petition filed challenging an order of adjudication passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 was not entertained and the appellant was relegated to file an appeal as provided under Section 107 of the GST Act.

The Bombay High Court quashed an order passed under FORM GST DRC-07 regarding GST applicability on a Deed of Assignment transferring land and a constructed building. The petitioner argued the transaction fell under Schedule III, not Schedule II, of the CGST Act. Despite a reply to the show cause notice, the impugned order wrongly stated no response was received. The court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication and directed procedural compliance.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1191/GST/2024/-25 registered at Police Station Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Raipur Zonal Unit, for the offences punishable under Section 16, Section 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (c) and 132 (1) (f) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order dt. 28.02.2022 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner confirming the order dt. 15.12.2020 passed by the 2nd Respondent.

The High Court dismissed the bail application of the accused charged under Section 132(1)(c), (f) and (h) of the CGST Act for availing ?10.87 crore of fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) using forged documents and non-existent firms.

The High Court quashed a Rs 3,731 crore GST demand notice against an employee, ruling that the liability pertains to the employer company. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of vicarious liability under Sections 122(1A) and 137.