The case examines the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The court identified procedural lapses, including lack of notice and opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. It held that orders violating principles of natural justice under Sections 107(8) and 107(12) of the Jharkhand GST Act must be set aside.

Heard Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, CGS for all the respondents.

The petitioner’s consignment was intercepted and a penalty was imposed as the goods were initially transported without an e-way bill. The petitioner produced the e-way bill along with the reply to the show cause notice before the seizure order was passed. The authorities failed to identify any defects in the e-way bill or provide evidence of intent to evade tax. The High Court relied on precedents, including M/s Bans Steel v. State of UP, holding that if documents are submitted before the seizure order, no penalty can be imposed without proof of tax evasion.

The High Court examined the validity of a GST proceeding initiated against a petitioner engaged in brick manufacturing. The case challenged an order rejecting the petitioner’s request for product analysis and the subsequent show-cause notice. The Court found that the revenue authorities failed to collect a proper sample during the inspection and later accused the petitioner of tampering with the sample. The proceedings are quashed on procedural grounds.

The petitioner challenged penalties and interest imposed by the CGST authorities, despite full payment of tax dues of Rs 33,69,271. During the writ proceedings, Section 128A of the CGST Act was introduced, which waived interest and penalties for tax dues paid within a specified period. The court ordered the refund of the deposited amount, granting liberty to the petitioner to file for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

The petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 14th June, 2023, citing Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST, which temporarily stays recovery actions until the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational. The court recognized that the petitioner made a prima facie case and granted an interim stay on the recovery of the outstanding GST demand. The stay will remain effective if the petitioner deposits 10% of the disputed tax within two weeks, in addition to earlier payments under Section 107(6).

For the grant of any other consequential relief/s for which petitioner is found entitled in the eye of law.”

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the respondents under Section 129(3) of the GST Act imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,40,000/-.

The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 28th January, 2025 issued under Section 83 of the MGST Act, 2017. By the impugned order, the Petitioner’s bank account No. 0063900 maintained with the 4th Respondent Bank has been attached.

The petitioner, a cooperative society, challenged GST orders issued without physical notice or a hearing. The court found that the orders, merely uploaded on the GST portal, violated principles of natural justice. It quashed the orders and remanded the matter for reconsideration, subject to a 10% pre-deposit of disputed tax.

The above Writ Petition is filed (i) seeking to quash and set aside the letter dated 2nd September, 2024 issued by Respondent No. 2; and (ii) to restrain the Respondents from proceeding with the Show Cause Notice dated 11th July, 2024 to the extent of Input Tax Credit voluntarily forgone by the Petitioner.

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the condition of pre-deposit for filing an appeal before the GST Tribunal. The petitioner argued that as per the amended Section 112(8), only 10% of the disputed tax is required as pre-deposit instead of 25%.