The High Court set aside the dismissal of the petitioner`s appeal due to delay, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal even after the condonable period. The court found that the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds, despite the petitioner’s argument that no opportunity was provided during the assessment proceedings related to a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A.

The High Court set aside the appellate order dismissing the petitioner’s appeal due to delay, ruling that the appeal must be adjudicated on merits. The delay was attributed to the financial hardship of the petitioner and the illness of its managing director, which were found to be valid reasons for the delay in filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The petitioner challenged the order-in-original passed on 04.05.2024 under Section 73(9) of the Central and Assam Goods and Services Tax Acts. The petitioner contended that the order was issued beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 73(10), which mandates a time frame of three years for passing such orders. The Court quashed the impugned order as it was beyond the limitation period.

The High Court set aside the order-in-appeal dated 5th July 2024 and remanded the matter for de novo consideration, ruling that the petitioner was not provided with sufficient opportunity to prove the date of receipt of the order-in-original. The court directed that a fresh hearing be conducted, with proper notice and reasoned judgment.

The High Court quashed the detention order under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, ruling that the goods were legally purchased and sold, with proper documentation. The detention was based on a lack of accompanying documents, which were later produced. The court ordered the refund of the security amount deposited by the petitioner, stating that the detention was unjustified.

The High Court quashed the detention order and directed the release of goods under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, holding that the authorities wrongly enhanced the valuation under Section 129(1)(b). The court relied on earlier judgments to conclude that the penalty should be calculated based on the invoice/eway bill and not an enhanced valuation.

The High Court set aside the adjudication order issued under the U.P. GST Act on the grounds that the petitioner was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing, despite requesting it in response to a show-cause notice. The court held that the denial of a personal hearing violated principles of natural justice as outlined in Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of GST registration, arguing that the order lacked application of mind, as it contained contradictory statements regarding the submission of a reply to the show cause notice. The court quashed the cancellation order, citing a lack of reasoning and non-compliance with principles of natural justice, and directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter after allowing the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.

The petitioner sought to quash the deficiency memo rejecting its GST refund application due to an alleged limitation issue. The court ruled in favour of the petitioner, stating that the initial refund application was filed within the prescribed time limit. The court quashed the deficiency memo and ordered the refund along with interest and costs for wrongful withholding of the tax paid in excess.

The petitioner, Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal, was charged with creating fake firms and availing inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ?54.33 crore. Despite the serious allegations, no documentary evidence was provided by the prosecution to support these claims. The court granted bail, considering the lack of proof, the petitioner`s cooperation, and the unlikelihood of trial completion in the near future.

The petitioner challenged the show cause notice, citing a lack of jurisdiction and the failure of the respondent to issue a notice under Section 74(5) read with Section 74(8) and Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules. The court granted ad-interim relief, allowing the proceedings to continue but restraining the issuance of a final order without the court`s permission.