Orissa High Court set aside adjudication order passed under Section 74 holding that the Proper Officer acted in undue haste and violated principles of natural justice. Despite being informed about pendency of writ petition challenging fresh show cause notice, authority finalized demand to meet limitation timeline. Court held such arbitrary exercise of power offended Article 14 and remanded matter for fresh adjudication after granting opportunity of hearing.

The Gauhati High Court dealt with a writ petition concerning the cancellation of GST registration of Bobismrita Chetia Gogoi due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner argued that she was unaware of the cancellation notice due to miscommunication with her tax consultant. The court directed her to approach the authority for restoration of her registration, provided she meets all necessary requirements.

In W.P.(C) 9187/2025, the Delhi High Court addressed a petition by C L International challenging an Order-in-Original regarding fraudulent Input Tax Credit claims. The court found that the matter involved complex transactions and factual determinations better suited for appellate review under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court ruled against the petitioner, emphasizing the need to pursue statutory remedies rather than writ jurisdiction.

The Sikkim High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration where the authority failed to consider the petitioner’s reply seeking extension and personal hearing. As the impugned order contained no reasons and ignored explanations regarding business operations, the matter is remitted for reconsideration after affording opportunity

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed writ petition challenging GST rectification orders, holding that effective alternative remedy of appeal was available. Since assessment was passed after due notice and rectification applications were considered with hearing, disputed factual issues could not be examined under Article 226. Writ dismissed.

Declaration Regarding Duplicate e-Way Bill Generation

The Allahabad High Court set aside the appellate order confirming penalty under Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act where the petitioner contended that the laboratory report wrongly described the sample as “lubricating oil” instead of “Mixed Linear Alpha Olefins.” The Court held that specific objections regarding sampling error and report discrepancy were not considered by the appellate authority. As reasons were not assigned and contentions were ignored, the order is vitiated for non-application of mind and violation of natural justice.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the GST registration cancellation order dated 23.04.2024. The petitioner submitted that he is ready to deposit the outstanding tax, interest, and late fee, if any, and sought permission to apply for revocation of cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner also prayed for appropriate directions to the authority to consider such application in accordance with law.

The present writ petition challenges the appellate order dated May 11, 2024 passed under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

Heard Shri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4; and Ms. M. Das, learned counsel representing the Union of India on behalf of Shri S.K. Medhi, learned CGC.

The present writ petition challenges orders dated May 29, 2023 and June 05, 2023 passed under the GST Act, whereby the petitioner was held liable for tax for the period July 2017 to March 2018 on the allegation of excess availment of Input Tax Credit.

Petitioner challenged provisional attachment of bank accounts under section 83 of the MGST Act during investigation alleging tax liability on free handover of redevelopment flats to society members and MHADA. High Court held that attachment orders and rejection of objections were unreasoned and mechanically passed, violating safeguards laid down in Radha Krishan Industries and Originative Trading Pvt. Ltd. Since no reasons were recorded while maintaining attachment, the orders were quashed and matter remanded for fresh consideration after granting opportunity of hearing.