By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Tax, Agra/respondent no.1 and the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Sector-4 Agra/respondent no.2 for the period August 2018 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned ACSC for the State - respondents.

The Allahabad High Court quashed seizure and penalty orders under Section 129 of the GST Act, holding that expiry of e-way bill due to the driver’s illness did not indicate intent to evade tax. The transaction was a genuine “bill to ship” supply supported by valid documents. Mens rea is essential for penalty.

- The Orissa High Court restored an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with Section 107(6) of the GST Act, noting that the appellate authority had registered the appeal and even issued a hearing notice. Since the petitioner subsequently paid the required pre-deposit, rejection of appeal was unjustified. The Court remanded the matter for fresh hearing.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed after one and a half years challenging an adjudication order under Section 73 of the WBGST Act. The Court held that in absence of any sufficient cause for delay and existence of an alternative remedy under Section 107, extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

Heard Shri Ayush Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The cases on hand pertain to the financial years 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 and the period from April 2023 to August 2023. The first respondent issued show cause notices dated 10.05.2024 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why he should not pay the tax, interest and penalty determined in the show cause notices. The show cause notices were a fall out of the surprise inspection conducted in the petitioner`s business premises on various dates in September 2023 under Section 67 of the TNGST Act, 2017. As many as 9 defects were noticed and they had been catalogued in the notices also. The petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notices. Thereafter, the impugned orders came to be passed on 11.06.2024 and 18.06.2024 calling upon the petitioner to pay the petition mentioned sums towards tax, penalty and interest. Challenging the same, these writ petitions have been filed.

his petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2025 passed by respondent no.4 for financial year 2020-21, whereby a demand to the tune of Rs.6,52,259.04/- has been raised against the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed for quashing of the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay.

The proceedings in the present case were initiated vide Interim Order No. 07/2022 dated 10.05.2022 passed in the case of M/s S.R. Lifesciences. Vide said order, the Authority directed the DGAP to investigate the entire chain of the supplier of M/s S. R. Lifesciences, under Rule 133(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. On the basis of the order dated 07/2022 dated 10.05.2022, the DGAP had investigated the matter and submitted an Investigation Report dated 31.08.2022 under Rule 133(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 to the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (hereinafter referred as ‘NAA’).

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court directed restoration of GST registration cancelled for non-response to a show-cause notice, following its consistent approach in similar cases. Subject to depositing tax, interest, and penalty and filing pending returns within seven days, the petitioner’s registration must be restored. Failure to comply renders the order inoperative.

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Order-inOriginal dated 27th January, 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi, North Commissionerate (hereinafter, ‘impugned OIO’).

The writ petition challenges the orders dated 11.08.2023 and 04.07.2023 passed by the authorities.