The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the GST adjudication order dated 19.07.2024, ruling that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner alleged a lack of opportunity for hearing, denial of cross-examination, and inability to submit a written reply. However, the court held that such grievances should be addressed through the appellate mechanism rather than invoking writ jurisdiction in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The High Court quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 7th December 2023, ruling that the show cause notice (SCN) is cryptic and failed to provide sufficient details. The court noted that the petitioner was not given a proper hearing and key documents, including the CGST Delhi East letter, were not served. The cancellation is set aside, directing the department to provide material evidence and grant the petitioner an opportunity for defense.

The High Court quashed the reversal of ITC credit amounting to Rs. 18,46,964/- along with penalty and interest, ruling that the petitioner is entitled to claim ITC as per the retrospective amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court followed a prior decision that extended the ITC claim deadline, making the reversal unsustainable in law.

The High Court quashed the GST demand order against M/s D.N.A. Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. due to the absence of a proper show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Assam GST Act, 2017. The court ruled that a mere summary notice in Form GST DRC-01 does not substitute a valid notice and set aside the order.

The High Court quashed the demand order and show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017, ruling that they were beyond the prescribed time limit. The court held that the retrospective extension of time did not apply to cases where the limitation period had already expired. The petitioner’s accounts are ordered to be de-freezed.

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 challenged the rejection of their GST appeal for being time-barred. The appeal pertained to an order issued during the Covid-19 pandemic, which the petitioner claimed to have been unaware of. The court acknowledged the impact of the pandemic and exercised its extraordinary powers to set aside the dismissal, restoring the case to the Assessing Officer.

The Allahabad High Court set aside the penalty and tax imposed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act due to a minor clerical mistake in the e-way bill. The court held that a mere human error, without intent to evade tax, does not justify penalty proceedings. Relying on past judgments, it ruled that the e-way bill’s purpose is to track goods movement, not penalize minor discrepancies.

The petitioner, a goldsmith, challenged the seizure of 3522.14 grams of gold under Section 67 and sought its provisional release under Section 67(6). The court rejected the plea, noting that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 had already commenced. The petitioner is granted liberty to seek release under Section 130(2) during the proceedings.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the GST order, ruling that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under the GST Act. Since the statutory appeal period had expired, the Court held that entertaining the writ petition would contradict the legislative scheme and dismissed the petition accordingly.

The High Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of its constitution. Further recovery proceedings are stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount as required under Section 112(8)(b) of the GST Act.

The petitioner sought an amendment in its GST registration to change the principal place of business, but the application was rejected due to an "incomplete address." Despite providing geo-tagged data and Aadhaar verification, the authorities denied approval. The High Court noted that the rejection order was erroneous and non-speaking. The respondent admitted the mistake and agreed to re-evaluate the application. The court disposed of the petition based on this concession, without ruling on the merits.