Introduces a new entry for services of insurance provided by the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund under Section 164B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Effective April 1, 2025.

This amendment clarifies that the provision under Serial Number 5 applies to individuals or entities excluding bodies corporate.

his amendment updates the definition of "specified premises" for better alignment with Notification No. 08/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate). The amendment will come into effect on April 1, 2025.

The Allahabad High Court set aside the penalty and tax imposed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act due to a minor clerical mistake in the e-way bill. The court held that a mere human error, without intent to evade tax, does not justify penalty proceedings. Relying on past judgments, it ruled that the e-way bill’s purpose is to track goods movement, not penalize minor discrepancies.

The petitioner, a goldsmith, challenged the seizure of 3522.14 grams of gold under Section 67 and sought its provisional release under Section 67(6). The court rejected the plea, noting that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 had already commenced. The petitioner is granted liberty to seek release under Section 130(2) during the proceedings.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the GST order, ruling that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under the GST Act. Since the statutory appeal period had expired, the Court held that entertaining the writ petition would contradict the legislative scheme and dismissed the petition accordingly.

The High Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of its constitution. Further recovery proceedings are stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount as required under Section 112(8)(b) of the GST Act.

The petitioner sought an amendment in its GST registration to change the principal place of business, but the application was rejected due to an "incomplete address." Despite providing geo-tagged data and Aadhaar verification, the authorities denied approval. The High Court noted that the rejection order was erroneous and non-speaking. The respondent admitted the mistake and agreed to re-evaluate the application. The court disposed of the petition based on this concession, without ruling on the merits.

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.

Assam Hydrocarbon And Energy Company Limited, Guwahati, Assam

Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra