The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A. The Court held that ITC was blocked following inspection and recorded statements indicating fraudulent availment. Objection regarding lack of jurisdiction of the State Tax Officer was rejected, relying on earlier precedent. The Court granted liberty to submit representation and directed disposal after hearing.

The Allahabad High Court granted interim protection in a writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 15(3)(b) of the CGST Act concerning post-supply trade discounts. Finding a prima facie case, the Court restrained further recovery subject to 10% deposit of disputed tax and issued notice to the Attorney General

Delay condoned.

The Bombay High Court quashed seizure of Rs.1 crore in cash under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, holding that the action was without authority of law. The Court found absence of recorded “reason to believe” and held that cash does not automatically fall within goods, documents, books or things liable for seizure. No notice under Section 67(7) was issued within six months. The Department’s action of handing over the seized cash to the Income Tax Department was also held unjustified. The seizure orders were set aside and refund with interest was directed.

The assessee filed a writ petition challenging a section 74 CGST order dated 30.09.2025 confirming Rs. 7,59,52,817/- demand with interest and penalty for alleged wrongful ITC, contending that section 74 was wrongly invoked and seeking permission to file statutory appeal without the mandatory 10% pre-deposit. The revenue pointed to findings of misstatement/suppression linked to fake invoices and absence of e-way bills. The Gauhati High Court held the order was reasoned, refused to waive statutory pre-deposit, and dismissed the writ, leaving merits open for appeal.

A taxpayer challenged the tax department’s orders denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) and also requested a refund of the pre-deposit made during the appeal.

The writ challenged cancellation of the assessee’s GST registration for non-filing of returns for over six months under Section 29(2)(c), contending the cancellation order lacked reasons and that pending returns and dues (tax, interest, late fee) were later cleared but revocation could not be filed due to portal time-bar. Though revenue objected on delay and availability of second appeal, the Court, noting serious civil consequences and Rule 22(4) proviso, disposed of the petition directing the assessee to apply within two months and requiring the authority to consider restoration expeditiously upon full compliance.

A taxpayer challenged the orders passed by the tax department denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) and also requested refund of the amount deposited during the appeal.

The taxpayer challenged an assessment order dated 22.12.2025, under which tax, interest and penalty were imposed because the department found differences in turnover reported in GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C.

- In a writ petition under Article 226, the assessee challenged suspension of GST registration, a show cause notice dated 18.02.2026, and a recovery/provisional attachment action dated 03.02.2026 as arbitrary and contrary to natural justice. During hearing, revenue stated that the suspension would be withdrawn and registration restored. The court disposed of the petition by accepting this statement, directing a time-bound hearing and order on the show cause notice, and directing that the recovery notice not be acted upon unless due process is followed.

The writ petition challenged a GST demand for April 2021–March 2022 issued after a DRC-01 summary dated 24.09.2025 and a DRC-07 order dated 26.11.2025. The assessee argued that no proper show cause notice under section 74 was served and no hearing was granted, as the hearing column in DRC-01 was blank. The court held that Rule 142 requires a summary only in addition to a valid section 74 notice, and section 75(4) mandates hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated, rendering the impugned action contrary to natural justice.

The writ petition challenged a GST demand for July 2017–March 2018 raised under Section 73 on the basis of a DRC-01 “summary” with an attachment showing tax determination, followed by a DRC-07 order. The assessee argued that no proper show cause notice was served, the uploaded documents were not duly authenticated as per Rule 26, and no hearing was granted despite an adverse decision. The Gauhati High Court held that a proper SCN is mandatory and hearing under Section 75(4) cannot be bypassed, and accordingly interfered with the impugned demand