BOMBAY HIGH COURT [Vikas Laboratories Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors]

1 In brief petitioner had applied for GST refund. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Division IV, Belapur Commissionerate sanctioned the entire refund as claimed by petitioner vide order dated 17th May 2018, two orders dated 18th May 2018, three orders dated 21st May 2018 and order dated 25th May 2018. The details of the orders are as under :

BOMBAY HIGH COURT [Sanjeev Suresh Desai Vs Union of India and Ors]

1. Since the pleadings in the petitions are completed, we decided to dispose both the petitions with the consent of the parties by this common order.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [ P. Nandhakumar Represented By Its Proprietor of NN Agency) Vs The Superintendent of GST, Salem ]

The petitioner challenges an order of cancellation of GST registration dated 19.04.2023 and seeks revocation thereof. By asserting that the petitioner could not file returns in time on account of ill-health, the present writ petition was filed.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [Nagarajan Pavithra Vs The Union of India, The Goods & Services Tax Council, Central Board of Indirect Taxes ]

An assessment order dated 29.04.2024 is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner received show cause notice dated 28.12.2023. By such show cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause in respect of failure to report correct tax liability while filing the annual returns in Form GSTR 9. The petitioner replied to such show cause notice on 16.04.2024. The impugned assessment order was issued thereafter.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [Jayanth Ship Chandlers, Represented By Its Proprietor S. Jayasingh Raja Vs The State Tax Officer, Tuticorin ]

By this common order, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of, with the consent of the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respective respondents.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [ Bright Hardware, Rep. By Its Proprietor - George Jaison Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer – I, Coimbatore]

An order in original dated 18.01.2024 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. By asserting that the petitioner had engaged a part time accountant to handle GST compliances and was therefore unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order, the present writ petition was filed.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [Annai Earth Movers, Represented By Its Proprietor S. Rajasekar Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Chennai]

An order dated 26.08.2023 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. By asserting that the show cause notice and other communications were uploaded in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the present writ petition was filed

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Siddha Mahajan Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India Honble Justice]

Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sauabh Mishra, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [Itares Shoes Private Limited, Rep. By Its Director B. Mohammed Ifthikar Vs The Additional Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai, The Deputy Commissioner, The Superintendent of Central Taxes,]

An order in original dated 28.03.2024 is subject to challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner received a demand letter dated 21.12.2023 with regard to the disparity between the e-way bills reflected in the e-way bill portal and the petitioner`s GSTR 3B returns for assessment periods running from 2018-19 to 2020-21.

DELHI HIGH COURT [Kamla Vohra Vs Sales Tax Officer Class]

The impugned SCN was uploaded on the portal in the category of ‘Additional Notices’ which the petitioner claims was not easily accessible. It is contended that the show cause notices were required to be placed under the heading of ‘Notices’ but the same was not done. The GST Authorities had addressed the issue and had re-designed the portal to ensure that ‘View Notices’ tab and ‘View Additional Notices’ tab were placed under one heading. The impugned SCN was issued before the portal was re-designed. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

DELHI HIGH COURT W. P. (C) 8175/2024, CM APPL. 33563/2024, CM APPL. 37505/2024 & CM APPL. 33562/2024 (STAY) Lakshman Pran Data Enterprises Vs The Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax, Delhi and DELHI HIGH COURT [Lakshman Pran Data Enterprises Vs The Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax, Delhi]

A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that it does not set out any reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s response to the Show Cause Notice. It is also apparent that the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing pursuant to the Reminder Notice and the impugned order incorrectly proceeds on the basis that such personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. This court set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the respondent for consideration afresh.

DELHI HIGH COURT [R.K. Jain and Sons Hospitality Services Private Limited Vs Union of India]

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the raid conducted on 16.11.2023 be declared as illegal and in gross violation of the due process of law. The petitioner also impugns the Show Cause Notice dated 25.07.2024 (hereafter the impugned SCN) issued under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act) and the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the SGST Act).

Page: