Calcutta High Court set aside adjudication and appellate orders demanding ITC reversal where authorities failed to consider return data available on GST portal. Court held that ignoring GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 data amounts to abdication of duty. Even if show cause notice was not replied, authorities must examine statutory returns. Matter is remanded for fresh adjudication after granting hearing. Recovery proceedings based on set aside orders are also restrained.

Gujarat High Court directed processing of GST refund on leasehold land transfer, holding authorities cannot ignore binding precedent treating such transfer as sale of land. Issuance of deficiency memo without considering settled law was disapproved. Court directed authorities to grant refund within specified time upon fresh application.

Bombay High Court directed restoration of GST registration where assessee cleared entire tax dues, interest and late fees. Court held GST framework aims to ensure tax compliance, not permanently disable business operations. Non-revocation of registration after full payment causes prejudice to assessee and revenue. Authorities must exercise powers under Section 30 read with Rule 23 reasonably. Cancellation without granting effective opportunity and ignoring revocation provisions is held unjustified

The Bombay High Court quashed the order short-sanctioning refund of amounts deposited during service tax investigation, holding that the refund authority failed to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Refund was denied merely due to inability to differentiate challans without examining evidence produced by the assessee. The Court held that denial of refund without hearing and proper verification violates principles of natural justice.

The Court heard the counsel for the petitioner, the State authorities and the Union of India.

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Hetvi Sancheti waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent.

Order dated 17.01.2025 passed by respondent No. 4 was assailed by the petitioner through the medium

Heard Mr. S. Barthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance & Taxation.

The Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the State. The State counsel stated that he had full instructions and did not wish to file any counter affidavit. With consent of both parties, the writ petition was decided at the admission stage.

This writ petition challenges an order dated October 23, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The appellate authority had rejected the petitioner’s appeal against an earlier order dated September 22, 2022.

This writ petition challenges an order dated February 20, 2025, passed by the Appellate Authority under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, whereby the petitioner’s appeal against an order dated September 06, 2022, was dismissed on the ground of delay.

Hon’ble Justice Vikas Budhwar heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel for the State. The Standing Counsel stated that he had sufficient instructions to argue the matter, did not intend to file a counter affidavit, and agreed that the writ petition could be decided on the basis of the documents already on record. With the consent of both parties, the Court proceeded to decide the writ petition at the admission stage.