Regular bail is granted in a case involving alleged availment of ?31.18 crore ineligible Input Tax Credit through 17 fake firms under the CGST Act. The High Court observed that the case is based entirely on documentary evidence, tax recovery proceedings had not yet commenced and the trial is yet to begin. Continued judicial custody was found unnecessary as the accused had already spent over six months in custody and had cooperated with the investigation.

A clarification was sought on the High Court’s earlier order that quashed advertisement tax demands post-01.07.2017 under the UP GST Act. The Nagar Nigam argued it collected advertisement “fees,” not tax. The Court rejected the application, stating that the original judgment is self-explanatory, quashing only tax demands under now-abolished powers post-GST. No new interpretation or fresh consideration is warranted on a clarification plea and the application is dismissed.

1. Mentioned. Not on board. With the consent of the parties taken on board for ad-interim reliefs.

In the case before the Karnataka High Court, the petitioner challenged a consolidated GST order covering periods from 2017–18 to July 2023. The Court held that since financial years 2017–18 to 2019–20 fall under the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Section 128(A) of the CGST Act (effective 01.11.2024), the impugned order needed reconsideration. The order is quashed and the matter remanded for passing separate period-wise orders, enabling the petitioner to avail the Amnesty benefit.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

The Delhi High Court directed restoration of GST portal access to Mansura Brush Works for 30 days to file a reply to the suspension notice issued under Rule 21A. The petitioner’s registration was suspended for not conducting business from the declared premises, but due to technical portal inaccessibility, the reply could not be filed. The Court allowed the petitioner a fresh opportunity and disposed of the petition accordingly.

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused under Section 132 of the CGST Act for alleged creation of fake firms and evasion of ?33 crore via fraudulent e-way bills and invoices for scrap supply from Bihar to Punjab. The Court noted procedural lapses, non-compliance with arrest guidelines, absence of tax evasion figure in the arrest memo and relied on the Supreme Court’s directions on personal liberty and non-routine arrests.

Having heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner`s registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was suspended on January 3, 2024 w.e.f. January 3, 2024. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sunil Kumar, proprietor of M/s Sunil Knitwears, booked under Section 132 of the CGST Act and various sections of BNS, 2023. Despite allegations of GST fraud amounting to ?3.15 crore, the Court noted the petitioner’s consistent GST compliance, return filings and willingness to cooperate. Holding that no loss is prima facie established and no specific role attributed, interim protection is granted with conditions.

The Bombay High Court quashed a GST appellate order dismissing the appeal for lack of a Board Resolution authorizing the signatory. The Court held that the resolution is already on record and it is the duty of the authority to verify it. Matter is remanded for fresh adjudication with a personal hearing.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The Madras High Court quashed GST assessment and rectification orders against the petitioner for A.Y. 2018–19 due to failure to grant personal hearing and consider adjournment requests. The Court observed that when the authority intended to confirm part of the demand, it was bound to provide a hearing. Since the order was passed without due opportunity, the matter is remanded. The petitioner offered to pay ?5 lakhs as a condition for fresh proceedings.