The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, citing denial of personal hearing. The High Court found the case identical to Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner State Tax, where procedural lapses were noted. The order is quashed and the petitioner is granted a fresh opportunity to reply and be heard before a reasoned order is passed.

The petitioner challenged the disallowance of ITC under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act for the tax period November 2018 to March 2019 due to delayed GSTR-3B filing. The court noted the insertion of Section 16(5) through the 2024 amendment, which extended the cutoff date for filing. The ITC claim is deemed valid and the petitioner is permitted to apply for rectification.

The petitioner challenged the disallowance of ITC claimed in GSTR-3B for the period September 2018 to March 2019, which was filed beyond the due date. The court recognized the retrospective amendment to Section 16(5) of the WBGST Act, 2024, and allowed the petitioner to apply for rectification to claim ITC.

The petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act was rejected due to non-payment of the 2.5% pre-deposit from the electronic cash ledger. The High Court held that since the entire tax amount is already recovered, no further deposit is necessary. The order rejecting the appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication.

The petitioner challenged the disallowance of ITC under Section 73 of the GST Act due to a delayed GSTR-3B filing. The court held that the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) allowed ITC claims filed by November 30, 2021. Noting this amendment, the court permitted the petitioner to apply for rectification, thus granting relief against the earlier ITC disallowance.

This petition is directed against order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Commissionarate, Kanpur under Section 74 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 (`the Act`) whereby demand for the tax period July, 2017 - March, 2018 to April, 2021 - March, 2022 has been created.

The petitioner’s goods were detained under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to a typographical error in the e-way bill's vehicle number. Despite submitting proof of ownership, a penalty of ?59,00,000 was imposed. The court held that the penalty should be under Section 129(1)(a), not Section 129(1)(b) and quashed the order.

The petitioner, an e-commerce platform, challenged an order requiring it to deduct 1% TCS under GST on transactions facilitated through its portal. The petitioner argued that it merely connects buyers and sellers and is not a party to the contract. The court granted an interim stay on the order’s execution.

This writ petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner essentially challenging the validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as “CGST Act”). The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 31.03.2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), whereby the time limit was extended for passing the orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 22.12.2023 issued by the respondent No.8 under the provisions of the CGST Act.

The petitioner challenged the imposition of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the UP GST Act for transporting goods without proper documentation. The goods were intercepted en route to a job worker, and the authorities found discrepancies in the place of unloading. The petitioner argued that the goods were accompanied by documents, but the court held that the challan lacked necessary details as per Rule 45 and Rule 55, justifying the penalty.

Empanelment of Chartered Accountants/Legal firm for FEMA & other allied services

Odisha State Health & Family Welfare Society, Bhubaneswar, Odisha