The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the blocking of input tax credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the GST Rules. The petitioner argued that the negative blocking of ITC was improper. The court referred to existing judgments and ruled that the blocking should not imply appropriation but serves as security pending recovery.

The High Court quashed the seizure and demand orders issued under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act. The petitioner’s goods and vehicle were seized for not carrying an e-way bill. The court held that during the relevant period, the transport of goods was not legally subject to e-way bill requirements.

The petitioners challenged an appellate order dated 31.05.2024 demanding tax dues. Citing the absence of a GST Appellate Tribunal, the court referred to Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST, which provides for recovery stay upon pre-deposit under Section 112(9). The court granted an interim stay, subject to payment of 10% of the disputed balance.

The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order, arguing that insufficient time was granted to submit a reply and appear for a personal hearing. The court found that the petitioner was not provided a fair opportunity to defend their case and quashed the assessment order, remanding the case for reconsideration.

The High Court quashed an assessment order under the GST Act dated 17.10.2024 for the period 2022-23 to 2023-24. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN). The court held that an order without a DIN is invalid as per Supreme Court and CBIC guidelines.

The petitioner challenged a tax demand under Section 73 for FY 2019-20, contending that the notification extending the time limit for issuing the order was set aside by the High Court in a prior judgment. The court granted interim relief, restraining coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing.

The petitioner challenged a penalty of Rs 39,60,000 imposed under Form MOV-09 for non-generation of an e-invoice during a business-to-business transaction. The court found that the respondent failed to consider Circular No. 10/2019, which governs such matters and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued on 30.11.2024 for AY 2020-21, arguing it was issued beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 73(2) of the GST Act. The court held that the three-month prior notice requirement under Section 73(2) is mandatory and quashed the notice as time-barred.

The assessee, engaged in the sale of gold and diamond ornaments, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act for suppressed turnover. The court ruled that High Courts cannot intervene for partial adjudication and directed the assessee to appear before the adjudicating authority for a comprehensive resolution.

The petitioner received an adjudication order for FY 2017-18 and appealed against it, but the appeal was rejected due to delay. Meanwhile, a second adjudication order was mistakenly issued. The Court quashed the duplicate order, recognized the appellate authority’s failure to exercise jurisdiction, condoned the delay, and directed a fresh appeal hearing on merit within twelve weeks.

The petitioner sought regular bail under section 483 of the BNSS after being in custody for over three months for an alleged GST evasion of ?30 crores. The court ruled that detention without a concluded trial served no purpose, emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence. Bail is granted, subject to surety and bond conditions.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of GST registration, arguing that the show cause notice lacked material particulars. The court held that merely quoting Rule 21(b) of the CGST Rules without specifying violations was insufficient. Since the authorities failed to consider the petitioner's response with proper reasoning, the cancellation order is quashed, allowing fresh proceedings if required.