The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated April 30, 2025 by which its appeal against an adjudication order dated February 25, 2023 was dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Form DRC-07 for the tax period September 2021 to March 2022. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without granting a proper personal hearing and, therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice. It was prayed that the impugned order be quashed and fresh adjudication be conducted after giving a fair opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner, a State Tax Officer, challenged the suspension order dated 04.08.2025 passed in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry.

The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 05.02.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-07 for the tax period 2017–2018. The order was passed after a show cause notice dated 30.08.2024, to which the petitioner had submitted a reply.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati-D-8, whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled.

The petitioner’s appeal against the original order dated 06.12.2023 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the mandatory 10% pre-deposit had not been made.

Where GST registration stood cancelled, service of show-cause notice exclusively through the GST portal was held invalid under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Uttarakhand High Court quashed the adjudication order passed under Section 37, holding that portal-only service on a non-registered person violates statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The Court directed fresh adjudication after proper service and mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4).

Allahabad High Court quashed the order passed under Section 74 of the GST Act for failure to grant proper personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4). The Court held that passing an adjudication order without affording adequate opportunity violates principles of natural justice and renders the order non est in law.

The Calcutta High Court held that limitation for filing appeal under Section 107 cannot commence where the adjudication order and show cause notice were not properly served. Uploading documents only under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab is insufficient service. Appeal dismissed on delay is set aside and remanded.

Request for Adjournment of Hearing – M/s __________ (FY ________)

Bombay High Court quashed show cause notice issued under Section 74 demanding GST on assignment of 95-year leasehold rights in MIDC plot. Court held that assignment of leasehold rights, resulting in extinguishment of assignor’s interest, constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not supply of services under Section 7 read with Schedule II. Relying on Gujarat High Court decision, it ruled such transactions fall outside GST ambit. Notice and adjudication order are set aside.

The Delhi High Court addressed the challenge by Chemistry Design Pvt. Ltd. against an Order-in-Original issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner argued that a no due certificate post-amalgamation negated any liability, while the respondent claimed proper notice was given. The court quashed the original order, allowing the petitioner to respond and requiring the respondent to reconsider the matter after a hearing.