The High Court admitted the challenge to Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 for further consideration. However, it ruled that the validity of Section 16(2)(c) must be decided in line with a prior ruling, which held that ITC cannot be denied if the selling dealer fails to deposit tax.

The petitioner sought a direction for issuing Form GST DRC-07 to enable the filing of an appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act. As the tax authorities uploaded the required form during the proceedings, the Court ruled the petition as infructuous and dismissed it accordingly.

The petitioner challenged the validity of Notifications extending GST time limits under Section 168A of CGST Act, arguing they lacked GST Council recommendations. The Bombay High Court acknowledged that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court and granted interim relief, restraining authorities from enforcing the disputed GST demand order until final adjudication of the matter.

The High Court upheld the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account under Section 83 of the GST Act, 2017, finding it justified due to unpaid GST liabilities. The petitioner had collected GST from clients but failed to deposit it. Since the show cause notice was adjudicated, and a final order under Section 74 was issued, the petitioner was directed to file an appeal instead of seeking relief via a writ petition.

The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Garnishee Notice in Form DRC-13 dated 14th February 2025 issued by the State Tax Officer, Thane Division, Thane (Respondent No. 3) instructing Respondent No. 4 Bank to pay over a sum of Rs. 2,18,77,406/- to the Government for the tax payable by the Petitioner under the GST Act. A challenge is also laid to the impugned order dated 13th August 2024 issued by Respondent No. 3 demanding the aforesaid amount from the Petitioner. Before issuance of the said order, a Show Cause Notice dated 31st May 2024 was also issued. This Show Cause Notice is also challenged in the Writ Petition.

1. Questioning the provisional order of attachment issued under Section 83 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), dated 13th April, 2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, the instant writ petition has been filed.

Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner-Bank is a show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax, Jammu dated 30.11.2024 whereby, the petitioner-Bank has been called upon to show cause as to why an action may not be taken against it under the provision of Jammu and Kashmir GST Act, 2017 or the rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the show cause notice dated 01.11.2024 whereby the petitioner’s registration was suspended with effect from 01.11.2024. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the final order of cancellation of registration dated 16.01.2025.

The petitioners challenged an interim order allowing GST adjudication to proceed while restraining the final order’s enforcement. They sought modification based on a subsequent Supreme Court ruling staying similar show-cause notices. The High Court refused to interfere but granted liberty to seek modification before the Single Bench in light of the SC’s ruling.

The petitioner challenged GST proceedings for FY 2017-18 under the U.P. GST Act, arguing they were time-barred under Section 73(10). The High Court relied on a previous ruling in M/s A.V. Pharma vs. State of U.P., which held that the limitation period expired on 05.02.2023. Since the impugned orders are passed beyond this period, they are quashed as without jurisdiction.

The petitioners challenged the imposition of GST on the assignment of leasehold rights of land allotted by MIDC. They relied on the Gujarat High Court ruling, which held that such assignments involve immovable property and are not taxable under GST. The court found the issue significant and stayed the adjudication of pending show cause notices and orders for the petitioners. The matter is tagged with similar cases for final hearing and disposal.

The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, citing denial of personal hearing. The High Court found the case identical to Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner State Tax, where procedural lapses were noted. The order is quashed and the petitioner is granted a fresh opportunity to reply and be heard before a reasoned order is passed.