Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati, as well as the order dated 12.02.2024, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.03.2023 has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of Rule 36(4) of the CGST/AGST Rules, 2017 claiming it violative of the provisions of the CGST and AGST Act.

The court admitted the writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 36(4) of the CGST/AGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that the rule violates the CGST Act and cannot be addressed by the Appellate Tribunal. The court noted the legal question’s significance and scheduled a hearing for further consideration.

The court quashed the GST demand of Rs. 5.52 crore raised by Greater NOIDA Authority, terming it non-speaking and contrary to exemption notifications and rulings. It directed reassessment through a detailed speaking order and permitted pending premium payment.

The court set aside the assessment order for AY 2019-20 due to improper service of notices uploaded on the GST portal without proper communication. It remanded the matter for reconsideration upon payment of 10% of the disputed tax.

The Supreme Court stayed the department's order demanding repayment of refunded ITC, noting the non-functional GST Appellate Tribunal. It sought an explanation from authorities regarding the tribunal's delay. The High Court had dismissed the writ, citing alternative remedies under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking attachment of the defendants' assets and bank accounts over alleged GST fraud and unpaid dues of Rs. 77,05,223. It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that the defendants intended to dispose of assets to frustrate a potential decree. The GST proceedings against the defendants remain pending.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the CGST/WBGST Acts for wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment. It ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot replace the statutory adjudication process. The petitioner failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error or perversity in the SCN, with procedural grievances addressable during adjudication.

The court quashed the impugned GST order passed under Section 73, citing non-application of mind and template-like reasoning. It noted the improper rejection of the petitioner’s reply without valid reasons. Fresh adjudication is ordered, directing proper consideration of submissions and the issuance of a reasoned, non-arbitrary order.

The High Court quashed an appellate order dismissing an appeal for delay without notifying the petitioner. It directed the appellate authority to issue a defect memo, allow rectification, and adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing a fair hearing.

The High Court quashed the appellate and rectification orders, citing a breach of natural justice. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal without addressing alleged deficiencies or granting a hearing. The Court directed a fresh hearing, ensuring the petitioner has an opportunity to address objections and procedural compliance.

The High Court dismissed the GST department’s review petition, rejecting claims of insufficient time for verification and undisclosed evidence. It upheld its original order directing a refund of interest, emphasizing that procedural lapses are insufficient grounds for review.