The assessee challenged an appellate order rejecting a GST refund for SEZ supplies on the ground that endorsed invoices by the SEZ specified officer were not filed at the refund stage and that additional evidence could not be produced in appeal. The Bombay High Court held that Rule 112 allows additional evidence in appeal in specified circumstances and the appellate authority wrongly ignored these exceptions. The order was set aside and the matter remanded to the appellate authority to decide afresh after considering the additional evidence.

The assessee sought reimbursement of GST paid on frozen meat supplied to the Indian Army for FY 2019–20, after the Army refused payment citing clarifications treating the supply as GST-exempt under Notification No. 2/2017. The Delhi High Court held that advance rulings of RAAR/RAAAR had already determined the goods were supplied in unit containers, taxable at 5%, and not exempt; under Section 103 CGST Act these rulings bound the assessee. The petition was allowed and reimbursement directed within three months, failing which interest at 6% p.a. applies

Corrigendum Invitation For Experienced Firms Of Chartered Accountants For Internal Audit

In a writ petition under Article 226, the assessee challenged rejection of its GST refund claim on the ground of non-production of a BRC for an export invoice, contending that the FIRC and related documents had been submitted but ignored. The Bombay High Court found that the matter should be reconsidered without prejudice to the revenue, quashed the rejection order, and remanded the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication with a reasoned order after hearing and considering all documents, keeping all contentions open.

The writ petition challenged GST recovery notices issued after the first appellate authority dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee contended it had already paid the entire disputed tax (CGST and SGST) as shown in the Electronic Liability Ledger and only interest/penalty remained, and that it intended to file a Tribunal appeal within the permitted time. The High Court held that, prima facie, payment of the tax component attracted section 112(9) CGST Act, staying recovery, and set aside the DRC-13 notices, reserving liberty to revenue if payment discrepancies emerge.

The writ petition challenged an order-in-original disallowing/raising issues on Input Tax Credit on the basis of alleged mismatches in GST returns (GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B vs GSTR-9). The assessee contended that it had filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice with a reconciliation statement, but the authority neither afforded an effective opportunity of hearing nor considered the reconciliation, while stating that no reconciliation was submitted. The High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to explain the reconciliation.

The writ petition challenged a section 74 GST demand for April 2020–March 2021 affirmed in first appeal. The assessee pleaded that a second appeal under section 112 could not be filed as the GST Appellate Tribunal was not functional. The revenue accepted this but insisted that section 112(8) pre-deposit is mandatory. The High Court referred to section 112(8) and the notification dated 17.09.2025 allowing Tribunal appeals to be filed up to 30.06.2026, indicating the remedy lies before GSTAT subject to statutory deposit and timelines.

After an audit under section 65, proceedings under section 73 resulted in a demand of tax, interest and penalty, which was partly reduced in appeal under section 107 to Rs. 55,62,048/-. The assessee invoked Article 226 alleging misclassification of export of iron ore fines as composite supply rather than supply of goods. The High Court refused to examine the merits, holding that an effective alternative remedy of appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal under section 112 was available, and dismissed the writ with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

The assessee filed a writ petition challenging an order of the GST appellate authority rejecting the appeal as time-barred, alleging that the rejection was made without hearing in breach of Section 107(8) and natural justice. The revenue argued that an efficacious alternative remedy existed under the GST statute. The Orissa High Court held that the alleged procedural violation and related factual issues could be examined by the statutory appellate forum/tribunal and, following Radha Krishan Industries, refused to entertain the writ, granting liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

he writ petition assailed the first appellate order under the State GST law and an attachment notice, arguing that a second appeal could not be filed due to non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal. The court relied on CBIC Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST and the notified timelines for filing appeals, and disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file an undertaking to appeal when the Tribunal becomes operational and to deposit the equivalent pre-deposit within 15 days, whereupon recovery of the balance demand would remain stayed.

In a writ petition, the assessee challenged a GST demand order for FY 2021-22 alleging short reversal of ITC on common inputs for taxable and exempt supplies. The assessee had filed detailed replies, reconciliations and relied on CBIC circulars, also noting that similar proceedings for FY 2020-21 were dropped. The High Court found the order unreasoned and based on an unsupported assertion that the matter was “sub-judice,” and quashed it, permitting fresh adjudication after proper consideration and hearing.

The assessee challenged GST advance ruling orders classifying its cut tobacco product as “manufactured chewing tobacco” under HSN/CETH 2403 99 10 instead of CETH 2401 20 90. The High Court held that despite section 103 making advance rulings binding, they remain open to challenge under Articles 226/227, though judicial review is limited. Since an earlier writ appeal involving an identical process had been decided differently, sustaining the impugned rulings would cause unequal treatment; the court set aside the authorities orders and allowed the appeal