The High Court quashed the seizure and demand orders issued under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act. The petitioner’s goods and vehicle were seized for not carrying an e-way bill. The court held that during the relevant period, the transport of goods was not legally subject to e-way bill requirements.

The petitioners challenged an appellate order dated 31.05.2024 demanding tax dues. Citing the absence of a GST Appellate Tribunal, the court referred to Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST, which provides for recovery stay upon pre-deposit under Section 112(9). The court granted an interim stay, subject to payment of 10% of the disputed balance.

The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order, arguing that insufficient time was granted to submit a reply and appear for a personal hearing. The court found that the petitioner was not provided a fair opportunity to defend their case and quashed the assessment order, remanding the case for reconsideration.

The High Court quashed an assessment order under the GST Act dated 17.10.2024 for the period 2022-23 to 2023-24. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN). The court held that an order without a DIN is invalid as per Supreme Court and CBIC guidelines.

The petitioner challenged a tax demand under Section 73 for FY 2019-20, contending that the notification extending the time limit for issuing the order was set aside by the High Court in a prior judgment. The court granted interim relief, restraining coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing.

The petitioner challenged a penalty of Rs 39,60,000 imposed under Form MOV-09 for non-generation of an e-invoice during a business-to-business transaction. The court found that the respondent failed to consider Circular No. 10/2019, which governs such matters and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued on 30.11.2024 for AY 2020-21, arguing it was issued beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 73(2) of the GST Act. The court held that the three-month prior notice requirement under Section 73(2) is mandatory and quashed the notice as time-barred.

The assessee, engaged in the sale of gold and diamond ornaments, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act for suppressed turnover. The court ruled that High Courts cannot intervene for partial adjudication and directed the assessee to appear before the adjudicating authority for a comprehensive resolution.

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd, New Delhi, Delhi

Assam Society for Comprehensive Financial Management System, Guwahati, Assam

Kochi Metro Rail Limited, Kaloor, Kerala

MBM University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan