The Bombay High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging orders-in-original freezing the petitioner’s bank account. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the MGST Act, ensuring consideration of appeals on merits.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

Yesterday, after this matter was argued, at the request of Ms. Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents-State, of which request was made on the instructions of Mr. Chandar Kamble, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (D-113), who was yesterday present in the Court, we adjourned the matter to today.

The Allahabad High Court quashed orders issued under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, directing authorities to treat the petitioner as the owner of the goods per Circular dated 31.12.2018. It emphasized compliance with the circular when valid documents accompany the consignment.

The High Court quashed the appellate order dismissing a time-barred GST appeal, highlighting procedural lapses by the department. It emphasized the liberal interpretation of limitation laws in cases of genuine hardship and directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits.

The Bombay High Court issued notices for contempt against tax officers for arresting a petitioner during ongoing judicial proceedings. It noted prima facie interference with justice, directing the Commissioner to resolve the petitioner’s objections before the next hearing.

The High Court allowed the petitioner’s writ, holding that the benefit of Notification No. 07/2023 waiving late fees under the GST Act must extend to taxpayers filing delayed GSTR-9/9C returns before 01.04.2023. The Court emphasized fairness in implementing amnesty schemes.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act. The Court held that issues involving misclassification of goods, denial of ITC, and extended limitation period are factual matters to be adjudicated by the competent authority under the statutory framework.

The petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing registration No.TS05 UC 2257. This vehicle was seized by the 1st respondent, on 03.11.2024, in Vijayawada, while the said vehicle was transporting 21,625 kgs of iron and steel scrap along with the necessary E-way bill that had been handed over to the driver of the vehicle, by the consignor, who is the 6th respondent. This consignment was to be delivered from Vijayawada to Hyderabad in Telangana State.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing waiver from payment of the mandatory statutory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount under Section 107 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”) in order to enable the Petitioner to file an appeal against the orders dated 29th August, 2024 and 19th November, 2024.

The High Court set aside the GST assessment order issued without a DIN number, citing violation of CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST and precedents. The court allowed fresh proceedings with a valid DIN, protecting the petitioner’s rights under the GST framework.

The court allowed the petitioner 15 additional days to apply for login credentials and file a GST appeal under the amnesty scheme, citing technical glitches. The respondents were directed to consider the appeal upon filing, subject to a penalty of ?20,000 payable by the petitioner.