The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled after a show-cause notice went unanswered. The assessee filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking restoration. Relying on its approach in similar cases and the revenue’s concession that registration can be restored upon compliance, the High Court disposed of the petition directing the assessee to apply for restoration within seven days. Restoration was ordered subject to formalities, and the assessee had to file pending returns and pay tax, penalty and interest within seven days thereafter.

The writ petition challenged cancellation of GST registration dated 26 March 2025 for non-filing of returns. The Court noted that tribunal hearings had not commenced and that cancellation would prevent the assessee from doing business and raising invoices, which would also harm revenue collection. As there was no allegation of tax evasion, the Court set aside the cancellation and the appellate order, directing restoration of registration upon filing all default returns and paying tax, interest, fine and penalty within four weeks, failing which the petition would stand dismissed.

Goods and vehicle carrying pan masala were detained after interception and issuance of MOV-02, but the revenue passed no formal seizure/detention order for over four months and insisted on the assessee’s personal appearance, citing doubts about the firm’s existence and ownership. The court held this approach unjustified: invoices accompanied the goods and the 31.12.2018 circular clarifies ownership for Section 129, while Section 116 allows representation by advocate. The writ was disposed with directions for hearing, notice to consignee, deposit under Section 129(1)(a), and a Section 129(5) order within 48 hours, enabling release.

Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST for respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

The assessee filed a writ petition against an order cancelling its GST registration retrospectively from 17.12.2022, contending that its reply to the Form GST REG-17 show cause notice was not considered. The revenue alleged ineligible input tax credit and proposed proceedings under Section 74 read with Section 122. Observing that the reply appeared to have been sent by post before the cancellation order, the court directed that the cancellation be treated as suspension pending fresh adjudication, and ordered consideration of the reply on merits with hearing within two weeks.

The writ petition challenged a service tax recovery notice issued on the basis of an earlier Order-in-Original confirming demand with interest and penalty. The assessee contended that neither the show cause notice nor hearing intimation was served and the adjudication order was received only later by email, amounting to breach of natural justice. The revenue claimed communications were sent by registered post. The court directed fresh proceedings after supplying the show cause notice and granting time and personal hearing, and set aside both the recovery notice and the Order-in-Original.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the action initiated by the tax authorities on the ground that proceedings were already initiated earlier by another authority on the same subject matter.

The petitioner filed an application seeking regular bail in a complaint filed by the Directorate of GST Intelligence alleging wrongful availment of input tax credit through fake invoices.

The assessee challenged a penalty order under section 129(3) passed after interception of a goods vehicle during transit, alleging proper documents existed and raising jurisdictional objections. The revenue objected that an effective alternative remedy of appeal under section 107 was available. The Calcutta High Court declined to entertain the writ at this stage, disposed of it with liberty to file an appeal within three weeks, and directed the appellate authority to decide all issues, including jurisdiction, expeditiously within an expected eight-week timeline.

The assessee challenged a GST detention/penalty order passed under section 129(3) after its vehicle carrying goods was intercepted despite allegedly having valid e-way bill and invoices, and after it obtained release by paying penalty under section 129(1)(a). The revenue objected that an appeal under section 107 was the proper remedy. The High Court declined to entertain the writ at this stage, disposed it with liberty to appeal within three weeks, and directed expeditious disposal on merits including jurisdiction.

The writ petition challenged an order under section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act for July 2017 to March 2018, passed after two DRC-01 show cause notices that did not mention any hearing date. Although the assessee filed a belated DRC-06 reply seeking a personal hearing, the revenue passed the order without granting any hearing. The Court held that section 75(4) requires a hearing before an adverse determination and set aside the order, directing fresh adjudication after restoring portal access.

A regular bail application under BNSS was filed after arrest in a DGGI case alleging fraudulent availment of ITC of about Rs. 11.44 crores through fake invoices without supply of goods, involving allegedly non-operational supplier firms. The revenue opposed bail citing electronic and banking evidence and statements under CGST section 70. The High Court granted bail, noting the case was documentary, complaint had been filed, custodial interrogation was not shown necessary, offences carry up to five years and are compoundable, and no specific risk of tampering was demonstrated.