The assessee challenged GST proceedings for April 2020–March 2021 where only a DRC-01 summary with a tax-determination attachment was uploaded, followed by a DRC-07 order citing non-payment within 30 days. The court considered whether a valid section 73 show cause notice existed, whether the attachment could substitute the statutory notice/order, and whether hearing under section 75(4) was granted. It held that a proper, authenticated show cause notice and mandatory hearing are required; the impugned action was not compliant with law and natural justice.

The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months, and its appeal for revocation was rejected as time-barred. In writ proceedings, the assessee sought restoration, citing inability to respond to the show cause notice due to lack of online familiarity and health issues, and offered to file pending returns and pay dues. The Gauhati High Court held that under the proviso to Rule 22(4), the proper officer can drop cancellation proceedings upon such compliance, and directed the assessee to apply for restoration within two months for expeditious consideration.

The Delhi High Court held that writ petition challenging GST demand order involving classification and rate dispute is not maintainable where an effective alternative remedy of appeal under section 107 exists. The Court also upheld validity of consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years, relying on Ambika Traders judgment, and rejected the argument that such consolidation is impermissible in non-fraud cases. It clarified that merits, including classification and applicability of concessional rate, must be examined by appellate authority. Accordingly, writ petition was dismissed with liberty to avail statutory remedy.

The assessee challenged a GST order-in-original confirming demand of Rs. 3,00,14,058 for 2018-19 to 2023-24 under section 74, alleging violation of natural justice due to non-supply of relied upon documents, defective service of summons, and non-consideration of its reply, besides disputing valuation and the invocation of section 74. The Delhi High Court refused to go into merits and held the writ not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal under section 107 (read with rule 109A) was available.

The Gauhati High Court dealt with cancellation of the assessee’s GST registration for non-filing of returns for six months under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act. The assessee pleaded inability to respond to the show cause notice in time and sought restoration by complying with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. The Court disposed of the writ, permitting the assessee to apply for restoration by filing pending returns and paying dues, and directed the authority to decide within a fixed timeframe, clarifying limitation computation under Section 73(10).

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order dated 07.04.2022 (DRC-07) for April 2020–March 2021. The assessee claimed it could not file a statutory appeal due to cancellation of GST registration (29.05.2022 to 04.07.2023) and alleged lack of hearing. The court held no sufficient cause was shown, cancellation did not bar an appeal, the writ was filed belatedly, and natural justice was not violated as show cause notices were issued; writ jurisdiction cannot be used to defeat statutory limitation and alternate remedy.

The assessee filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order under section 73 of the Meghalaya GST Act, 2022, demanding reversal of input tax credit with interest and penalty. She argued that after sale of the business and cancellation of GST registration w.e.f. 09.11.2022, she did not access the portal and no physical notice was served, learning of proceedings only during recovery. The High Court held that absence of proper service and hearing violated natural justice, set aside the order, and directed fresh adjudication after reply and opportunity of hearing.

The Karnataka High Court held that the time limit of two years prescribed under section 54 of the CGST Act for filing refund applications is mandatory and cannot be treated as directory by authorities. However, recognizing absence of any statutory mechanism to condone delay, the Court held that taxpayers can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for seeking condonation in genuine cases. It further clarified that while condoning delay, corresponding protection must be granted to Revenue to invoke provisions like sections 73 and 74. In the present case, since entitlement to refund was undisputed, delay was condoned and refund claim directed to be processed.

The Tribunal held that failure to pass on additional ITC benefits constitutes profiteering under Section 171. Although the respondent accepted findings and refunded the remaining amount, liability for interest at 18% persisted as it is compensatory for delayed benefit transfer. However, penalty was not imposed since the violation period preceded enforcement of penalty provisions and the amount was refunded within stipulated time, granting relief under Section 171(3A).

Wrong GST Paid? IGST vs CGST/SGST – Complete Relief Guide

The Karnataka High Court held that the time limit of two years prescribed under section 54 of the CGST Act for filing refund applications is mandatory and cannot be treated as directory by authorities. However, recognizing absence of any statutory mechanism to condone delay, the Court held that taxpayers can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for seeking condonation in genuine cases. It further clarified that while condoning delay, corresponding protection must be granted to Revenue to invoke provisions like sections 73 and 74. In the present case, since entitlement to refund was undisputed, delay was condoned and refund claim directed to be processed

The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its GST appeal under section 107 as “filed in wrong jurisdiction”, arising from an order-in-original under section 74. The revenue stated that, when the appeal was rejected, there was no mechanism to transmit appeals to the correct jurisdiction, though an advisory was later issued. The Court, without entering merits, held the rejection to be a mistake, set aside the order, restored the appeal, and directed transmission to the proper appellate authority within 15 days.