etitioners sought GST refund on amounts collected by a promoter without issuing tax invoices or receipts. The High Court noted that deficiency memos were issued for lack of documentary evidence. Relying on Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt, the petitioners claimed entitlement to refund. However, the Court held the writ is premature since no legal steps are taken to obtain documents from the promoter. Petition is dismissed with liberty to pursue civil remedy or reapply with documents.

Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, heard finally.

The case pertains to a delay of 210 days in filing an appeal against a GST assessment order due to the non-receipt of a physical show cause notice. The High Court condoned the delay, considering the assessee’s claim that the notice was only uploaded on the GST portal without separate intimation. However, the Court directed the assessee to make an additional 15% pre-deposit, totaling 25%, for the appeal to be admitted.

The case challenges the levy of Agricultural Produce Market cess post-GST under the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972. The Gauhati High Court held the cess unconstitutional and ultra vires the CGST Act, 2017 and AGST Act, 2017. However, citing the financial condition of the respondent board and the lack of specific averments on the burden of cess, the court declined to order a refund of the cess already collected.

The petitioner challenged cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns due to financial hardship. The Bombay High Court, considering the petitioner’s bona fide conduct and willingness to pay dues with interest, directed restoration of registration subject to payment of computed tax dues and costs of ?40,000 to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund.

Heard Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central GST and CX.

Regular bail is granted in a case involving alleged wrongful availment of ?96.95 crore Input Tax Credit based on Rs 537 crore in fake transactions with 24 fictitious firms. The Gujarat High Court observed that investigation is complete and the charge sheet had been filed. Since trial is unlikely to commence soon, and considering the five-year maximum punishment, the Court exercised discretion to grant bail with strict conditions to prevent misuse of liberty.

The petitioner, engaged in IT/ITeS export services, claimed a refund of ?94,71,285 under Section 54 of CGST Act for FY 2017-18. Despite multiple representations, authorities failed to act. The High Court directed the authorities to decide on the refund claim within four weeks, ensuring adherence to legal provisions.

The petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice and consequential ex parte order issued under Section 74 of the UPGST Act for FY 2017–18. The High Court held that the notice lacked mandatory ingredients like fraud or suppression. Both the SCN and order are quashed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if warranted.

Bail is granted to an accused in a GST case involving alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs 5.40 crores. The petitioner had been in custody for 54 days, and the Court found no further need for detention as substantial investigation had been conducted. Emphasizing the fiscal nature of the CGST Act, the Court held that recovery of dues, not punitive incarceration, was the statute’s primary objective. Bail is granted with strict conditions.

The petitioner challenged GST adjudication orders as time-barred under Section 73, also questioning the constitutional validity of Notifications issued under Section 168A without GST Council recommendation. The Bombay High Court found a strong prima facie case and granted interim relief, staying proceedings under the impugned order pending final decision.

To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, order(s), directions, quashing the impugned order passed by Respondent dated 28 August 2024 having Order-in-Original No. 88/JC3/B-East/2024 with File No.: GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/JC/665/2024-ADJN and DIN-2024085700000000B1F2 along with Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28 August 2024 with Reference No.: ZD290824098421Z for the period of April 2019 March 2020, enclosed at Annexure-A to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner;