These two petitions have been filed by the Petitioner concerns challenging the same show cause notice dated 31st August, 2022 (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) and final order dated 3rd February, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’).

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition against GST demand and penalty orders alleging bogus ITC transactions, citing the need for factual scrutiny. The petitioner claimed no ITC was availed at its Delhi unit, but investigation showed fake invoices from a non-existent supplier. The Court permitted statutory appeal under Section 107 CGST Act by 15th July 2025, emphasizing that such fraud-related cases demand adjudication on facts, not writ intervention.

The Allahabad High Court quashed the appellate order passed without notifying the assessee about the judgment date. It held that reserving and delivering judgment later without notice violates natural justice. The matter related to GST ITC denial is remanded back for de novo consideration with proper hearing opportunity to the petitioner.

Delhi High Court set aside orders rejecting DMRC’s refund application under GST, holding that the limitation period commenced from the date of the conciliation agreement that resolved the contractual dispute and determined excess tax paid. The Court ruled that Explanation 2(d) to Section 54 of the CGST Act applied, as the refund became due upon settlement agreement, equating it with a decree. Refund and interest are ordered to be processed.

The Gauhati High Court quashed Notification No. 56/2023–Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 for extending limitation under Section 73 of the CGST Act without recommendation from the GST Council or existence of force majeure. Consequently, the related demand notice and order-in-original are also quashed. The Court reaffirmed that recommendations under Section 168A are a sine qua non and the absence of GST Council’s advice renders such notifications unsustainable.

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.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. H.R. Kambiyavar is present physically along with the learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel Sri. Girish Hulmani for respondent No. 5.

Rule. Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent – State and Mr. Tirth Nayak, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent No.2.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-1 order passed on 24.09.2021.

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs : -

. Heard Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava along with Mr. Prem Narayan Singh, Ms. Surabhi Bhaskar and Mr. Sisir Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the State.

The Bombay High Court ruled in favour of Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the company is not an agent of its foreign recipients and qualifies as an independent contractor. The Court emphasized that all conditions under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act for export of services are satisfied. Refund of unutilised ITC on account of zero-rated exports is directed to be granted with interest within four weeks.