Mr. Faizul Haque and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Subject: Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

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.

The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition challenging a government notification dated 28 December 2023 issued under the GST law which extended the time limit for passing certain orders by tax authorities.

The Allahabad High Court heard a writ petition filed by a taxpayer engaged in the business of wireless networking equipment. The dispute arose after the goods purchased by the petitioner were intercepted by the tax authorities during transportation because Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled by the transporter. Although physical verification of the goods revealed no discrepancy, the authority imposed a penalty of ?9.5 lakh.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging seizure, prohibition, and cancellation of GST registration, holding that such orders are appealable under the GST Act. The petitioner was directed to avail statutory remedies. Pending application for release of goods was ordered to be decided within thirty days.

In this decision, the Madras High Court examined the validity of Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules mandating same-month distribution of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by an Input Service Distributor (ISD). The petitioner challenged the rule as ultra vires Section 20 of the CGST Act and arbitrary under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The Court held that “credit available for distribution” must be interpreted harmoniously with Section 16, meaning only eligible ITC, after fulfillment of statutory conditions, can be distributed. Distribution cannot be compelled merely on receipt of invoice. The rule was read down accordingly, granting relief to the assessee.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging appellate order under Section 107 and adjudication under Section 73 of the GST Act. Since the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted, the Court held that statutory remedy was available and directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.

The Bombay High Court quashed a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act covering FY 2018–19 to 2022–23 in a consolidated manner. The Court held that the GST scheme contemplates assessment and limitation year-wise, linked to annual returns for each financial year. Clubbing multiple tax periods in a single notice violates the statutory structure and limitation provisions under Sections 73(10) and 74(10). Allegations of fraudulent ITC availment do not permit consolidation. Following its earlier decisions, the Court set aside the notice while granting liberty to issue fresh year-wise notices in accordance with law

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging order in Form GST DRC-07, holding that petitioner’s reply to show cause notice was duly considered and order passed on merits. As statutory appeal under Section 107 was available and within limitation, liberty was granted to file appeal.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside recovery orders demanding refund of IGST on exports, holding that Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, on which the demands were based, stood omitted without saving clause. Consequently, proceedings initiated under the omitted rule could not survive

The Madras High Court directed the department to dispose of the petitioner’s rectification application filed under Section 161 against a DRC-07 order confirming ITC reversal. The Court recorded the Government’s submission and granted 30 days time for decision, without adjudicating the merits of the ITC dispute.