The Allahabad High Court quashed the GST assessment order and show cause notice issued for A.Y. 2017–18 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, holding them time-barred. The Court followed its earlier ruling in M/s Anita Traders, clarifying that the extended deadline under the 24.04.2023 notification applied only if the original 3-year limitation under Section 73(10) had not already expired by 31.03.2023. The order dated 14.12.2023 is beyond jurisdiction.

The Delhi High Court quashed the denial of Rs 11.45 crore IGST refund on the ground that foreign remittances were received in the Bangalore bank account instead of the Delhi branch’s. The Court held that location of the supplier is determined by registration, not the bank’s location. Objection is found to be overly technical and unsustainable.

The Madras High Court held that GST assessments wrongly made under Section 74 without any allegation of suppression or fraud must be treated as proceedings under Section 73. This correction enables the petitioner to avail the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme for waiver of interest and penalty, since full tax was paid earlier and declared in GSTR-9/9C.

This petition is filed seeking setting aside of order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and CGST Commissionerate, Jaipur (for short ‘Additional Commissioner’).

The above Writ Petition is filed inter alia challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 23rd January, 2025 read with the impugned corrigendum dated 30th January, 2025. Preceding this order, there is also a Show Cause Notice dated 4th August, 2024 and the same is also challenged on the ground of being time barred and beyond the mandate of Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Having heard Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner`s registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 20.11.2020 w.e.f. 06.11.2020. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

This petition is directed against the order dated 20.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 for financial years 2018-19, whereby a demand to the tune of Rs. 59,27,500/- has been raised against the petitioner.

Abhinav Gaur, Seraj Ahmad, Sr. Advocate for the Petitioner. Dhananjay Awasthi, Parv Agarwal for the Respondent.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 17.11.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short `the Act`) wherein a demand of Rs. 21,49,585.60 has been raised in the name of Amit Kumar Sethia.

M/s Mahavir Metal House filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original issued on allegations of fraudulent ITC claim of Rs 2,38,062. The petitioner raised procedural objections, including different issuing and adjudicating authorities and consolidated SCN for multiple years. The Court refused to entertain the writ petition, citing availability of appellate remedy under Section 107 and the serious nature of fraud allegations, which require factual analysis beyond writ jurisdiction.

The Bombay High Court stayed the recovery order and directed defreezing of eight bank accounts after the petitioner agreed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Credit Ledger. Despite appellate remedy, writ is entertained due to hardship from account attachments.