The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8 th February, 2022 passed by the CT & GST Officer, Puri Circle, Puri for the tax periods from July, 2017 to March, 2018 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "GST Act"), which was affirmed in an appeal by the Appellate Authority on 25th September, 2025.

The High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand of Rs.97.53 lakh where the senior-citizen proprietor could not respond due to medical condition. As the SCN proceedings were concluded without reply or hearing, the Court granted another opportunity to contest the matter on merits, conditional upon payment of Rs.1,00,000 as costs and filing a reply.

The main issue is whether two different GST authorities can start proceedings on the same subject-matter when one authority has already begun action earlier. The law prohibits parallel proceedings on the same matter.

The petitioner assigned long-term GIDC leasehold rights to a third party pursuant to a tripartite arrangement with the bank under an OTS settlement. The Department issued a Section 74 SCN treating the assignment as a taxable “supply of service” under Section 7(1)(a) read with Heading 9972. Relying on the landmark Gujarat Chamber of Commerce (2025) judgment, the High Court held that assignment of leasehold rights constitutes transfer of immovable property, excluded from GST. The SCN is quashed.

The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, but due to serious illness and a dispute with his Chartered Accountant, he could not access the GST portal for years. The appellate authority dismissed his delayed appeal. Considering the unique facts, the Court exercised writ jurisdiction, restored the registration, and directed enabling of return filing.

The assessee received only five days to reply to a Section 73 SCN and the OIO was issued within a week. In appeal, a bizarre notice stated that no hearing was required and the OIA was passed even before the scheduled date. The Court held denial of hearing violates natural justice and restored the appeal.

The appellate authority dismissed the assessee’s Section 107 appeal for non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit. The High Court held that since the Department had already recovered more than 10% of the disputed tax, the pre-deposit condition stood satisfied. Considering the non-functional Tribunal and justified delay, the order is set aside and the appeal remanded for decision on merits.

DGAP initially reported profiteering of Rs.28.74 lakh, later revised to Rs.4,57,683 for the period 15.11.2017–30.06.2019. The assessee accepted the profiteered amount but disputed liability to interest and penalty. The Tribunal examined Rule 133(3)(c) as amended by Notification 31/2019 and, relying on Vatika Township (SC), held the amendment imposing 18% interest is prospective from 01.04.2020. Since the investigation period preceded the amendment, neither interest nor penalty was leviable. Only the profiteered amount must be deposited.

. Both the learned counsel took us through the relevant materials on record which included few passages from the show cause notice, the relevant provision of law including the relevant pleadings.

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 5.2.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade02(Appeal)-II, State Tax, Moradabad, (Respondent No.1) U/s 74 of GST ACT 2017 in GST Appeal No. 0104/2023, for tax period June, 2021 for the year 2021-2022 and the order dated 20.12.2022 passed U/s 74 of GST Act, 2017, by the Respondent No.2, and further directing respondents not to initiate recovery of tax (IGST) of Rs. 4,17,997/-, Interest of Rs. 1,06,589/- and Penalty of Rs. 4,17,997/-, totaling to Rs. 9,42,584/- in pursuance to the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Moradabad Sector-1, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner sought refund of unutilised ITC for November 2023, which remained unprocessed despite statutory timelines under Section 54(7). After the writ was filed, the department issued an SCN citing supplier’s high ITC utilisation. Refund is finally sanctioned, but without interest. The Court directed payment of the refund along with statutory interest within one month.

- The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled retrospectively from 01.07.2017 for non-filing of returns during COVID-19, and the appellate authority rejected the appeal as time-barred. Relying on Anil Soni and Ganpati Polymers, the petitioner argued that retrospective cancellation has severe unintended consequences and that delay is justified. The High Court held that, in writ jurisdiction, limitation could be relaxed. The cancellation appeal is revived, retrospective cancellation order set aside, and matter remanded for decision on merits after personal hearing.