The assessee filed a writ petition challenging a section 74 GST order-in-original for tax period 2018-19, alleging breach of natural justice, ignoring job-work confirmations and GST-ITC-04 evidence, and improper adverse inferences for missing delivery challans. The revenue objected on maintainability due to availability of appeal under section 107. The High Court held that the issues were essentially on merits and could be addressed in statutory appeal, and since the appeal period had not expired, it refused to entertain the writ and dismissed it.

In this case, the taxpayer challenged the demand raised on alleged wrongful input tax credit taken from a supplier later found to be non-existent and whose registration was cancelled retrospectively.

The GSTAT held that no profiteering was established where the builder had already passed on ITC benefits exceeding the computed profiteering amount. Though DGAP initially determined profiteering of Rs.6.59 crore due to increased ITC ratio post-GST, it was found that the respondent had passed on Rs.16.45 crore to homebuyers. The complainants also acknowledged receipt of due benefits. The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report and concluded that provisions of Section 171 were not violated. The case highlights that anti-profiteering provisions are satisfied where actual benefit passed exceeds computed liability.

None appears for the petitioners.

1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s).

The present petition has been filed seeking various reliefs, primarily to declare that the petitioner should not be treated as an “intermediary” for the services rendered. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the provision which deems the place of supply of such services to be in India, even when services are provided to recipients located outside India.

The matter was heard with arguments from both sides.

The present writ petition was filed challenging an order whereby the authorities had confiscated the vehicle and goods of the petitioner.

The petitioner approached the Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration and seeking its restoration.

The writ petition challenged disallowance of ITC for FY 2018-19 under Section 16(4) CGST Act and the order confirming demand, interest and penalty. During the proceedings, Section 16 was amended by inserting sub-sections (5) and (6), extending the time limit for availing ITC for specified financial years up to 30.11.2021. The Court held the challenge became unnecessary, directed payment only of excess utilized amount and interest, and set aside the order-in-original.

The writ petition challenged cancellation of GST registration under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for non-filing of returns. The High Court noted that tribunal hearings had not commenced and that cancellation, absent any allegation of tax evasion, would prevent the assessee from issuing invoices and carrying on business, ultimately harming revenue. Relying on a prior Division Bench decision, the Court set aside the cancellation and appellate orders, directing restoration upon filing all pending returns and paying tax, interest, fine and penalty within stipulated time.

The petition challenged cancellation of GST registration dated 27.05.2024 for non-filing of returns under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. Though a public notice indicated the Appellate Tribunal was set up, hearings had not commenced, and the Court entertained the writ as cancellation prevented business and invoice issuance. Finding no allegation of tax evasion, and relying on Subhankar Golder, the Court set aside the cancellation and appellate orders, conditional on filing all default returns and paying dues within four weeks.