The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, citing overlapping discrepancies in multiple show cause notices. The court quashed the impugned order, stating that the petitioner is denied a fair opportunity to present a reply due to procedural confusion. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration, conditional upon the petitioner paying Rs. 1.4 crores within four weeks.

The petitioner, a legal heir of the proprietor of M/s Mandy Enterprises, sought a refund of Rs. 28,84,115/- from the electronic cash register. The refund claim, initially rejected, was approved by the appellate authority. Despite the appellate order, the refund was delayed, leading to a petition. The court directed the respondents to immediately process the refund with applicable interest.

The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73 of the CGST and DGST Acts for the financial year 2018-19, citing a technical glitch causing an output tax liability mismatch. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration after granting a personal hearing.

The High Court set aside the order dated 13.06.2024, which cancelled the petitioner’s GST registration retrospectively from 01.07.2017. The court found that the petitioner had not been provided a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, which did not mention a date or time for a hearing. Additionally, the petitioner had not received the GSTI field visit report, which formed the basis of the cancellation.

Draft Reply Request to Drop Proceedings Under Section 74 of CGST Act

Draft Reply Response to Notice for Penalty under Section 122 for Non-Issuance of E-Invoice

The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Acts, alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on the cancellation of the suppliers` registrations. The petitioner contended that the suppliers were registered when the supplies were made, and GST was paid. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The High Court quashed the impugned order demanding ?9,44,35,415 for alleged excess ITC claim, finding that the petitioner had valid ITC under a different GSTIN. The court ruled that the Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST applied, directing the authorities to adjust ITC between the petitioner’s two GSTINs and pass a fresh order after reconsideration.

The petitioners challenged the attachment of their third bank account, which was reattached by the GST department after the previous attachment lapsed. The court ruled that once the attachment expires under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, it cannot be re-imposed without lawful authority. The court ordered the lifting of the attachment and directed the account to be defreezed.

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.

[Circular No. 232/26/2024-GST]

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.