The court quashed the assessment order under Section 73 of the GST Act, holding it violated principles of natural justice as no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted despite the petitioner’s specific request.

The court stayed the CGST/WBGST order under Section 73(9) based on a prima facie case, considering the retrospective applicability of Section 16(5) for delayed input tax credit claims, pending further hearing.

The petitioner challenged a GST demand order of Rs. 73,87,225.92, citing procedural lapses and failure to consider key submissions. The court granted conditional relief, directing rehearing upon depositing 50% of the demand within four weeks.

The petitioner challenged an interest recovery order under Section 75(12) of the UP GST Act, citing non-consideration of their reply. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after considering the petitioner's submission.

The petitioner challenged an interest recovery order under Section 75(12) of the UP GST Act, citing non-consideration of their reply. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after considering the petitioner's submission.

1. The Petitioners in the present writ petition have approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the quashing and setting aside of the order passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”) and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “WBGST Act”) for the financial year 2021–2022. The impugned order was passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Officer, Dakshin Dinajpur, being Respondent No. 1 herein.

The petitioner, an assessee under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘BGST Act’), is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration, for reason of his business being found non-existent.

1. The petitioner operates a sole proprietorship business under the name M/s Anand Impez, situated at 21, 3rd Floor, Synagogue Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata- 700001. The petitioner is a Registered Taxable Person (RTP) under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, holding GSTIN 19AAQPH8629C12E.

1. This matter concerning the demand for excess availed Inputs Tax Credit for the month of November, 2017-2018 in terms of Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST), is before us today for hearing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 25.09.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as being beyond limitation.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Proper Officer under Section 130 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2017”), whereby the vehicles and the goods thereon were confiscated by the Proper Officer, who imposed penalty to the tune of Rs. 6,49,742/- upon the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the respondent bank's action of adjusting Escrow Account funds meant for statutory liabilities, including GST, against loan repayments. This breach of the Escrow Agreement led to cascading financial issues, including GST non-compliance and NPA classification of the petitioner company. The court held the bank liable for violating Escrow Agreement terms, directing corrective action for GST compliance while acknowledging procedural gaps.