The petitioner approached the High Court to challenge an assessment order dated 27.07.2021 for the tax period 01.12.2018 to 31.12.2018, which had been passed on the basis of a show cause notice dated 30.04.2021. The petitioner stated that the department proceeded against him due to a factual mistake and wrongly assessed “Subrat Rout”.

Heard Shri R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. Jain, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST.

The Court heard arguments from the petitioner’s counsel and the State’s counsel.

The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand raised under Section 73 where the show cause notice and adjudication order were issued in the name of a deceased proprietor. The Court held that proceedings against a dead person are void ab initio and liability under Section 93 can arise only after valid proceedings against legal representatives.

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order for April 2018–March 2019 where the assessee failed to respond to the SCN as it was uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ on the GST portal. Considering denial of effective opportunity, alleged duplication of demand, and applicability of amended Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, the Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, keeping the challenge to limitation-extension notifications open.

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order and subsequent rectification order where the adjudicating authority mechanically proceeded on the assumption that no reply was filed, despite the assessee having submitted a reply by email and on the GST portal. Holding that non-consideration of the reply amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, the Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving the challenge to limitation-extension notifications open.

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order passed for July 2017 to March 2018 where the show cause notice and reminder were uploaded only in the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ on the GST portal. The petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings and consequently did not file a reply or attend personal hearing. The Court held that absence of effective communication resulted in denial of natural justice. Considering that the SCN was issued prior to improvements made in the GST portal, the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication after granting opportunity to file reply and personal hearing, subject to payment of nominal costs, while keeping the challenge to limitation-extension notifications open.

This writ petition assails an order dated October 17, 2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/ CGST Act, 2017 whereby the petitioner’s appeal against an adjudication order dated January 18, 2024 has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

Delhi High Court set aside GST adjudication order passed for tax period July 2017–March 2018, holding that the show cause notice and order were uploaded only in the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ and never came to the petitioner’s knowledge. As no effective opportunity of reply or personal hearing was granted, the Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, keeping the challenge to the validity of Notifications under Section 168A open and subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.

Gujarat High Court quashed a deficiency memo issued in Form GST RFD-03 rejecting a refund claim of interest paid under protest on assignment of leasehold rights. The Court held that refund application cannot be rejected merely citing absence of GST Council notification and directed revival and fresh adjudication of the refund claim within a stipulated time.

- The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the assessee to manually file GSTR-3B for the quarter ending March 2021 to claim missed ITC of Rs.10.54 lakh, which could not be availed due to an earlier error. The Court held that permitting manual filing would not automatically nullify the demand confirmed under Section 73 and that such demand would continue unless set aside in appeal. Procedural relief is granted without revenue prejudice.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a single composite GST assessment order covering multiple tax periods is impermissible under the CGST Act. Relying on earlier Division Bench precedent, the Court set aside both the assessment and appellate orders and permitted the department to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each tax period, excluding the intervening period for limitation.