The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled after inspection and a show cause notice, as the authorities found the business premises inadequate for the scale of transactions and the assessee could not substantiate actual movement of goods supporting ITC of about Rs.18.62 crore, producing only e-way bill printouts. The appellate authority and the single judge upheld cancellation. Dismissing the intra-court appeal, the High Court held that adequate opportunity was given, Section 29(2)(a) empowered cancellation for contravention, and material indicated fake invoices/fabricated documents, with parallel action initiated against suppliers.

The writ petition challenged cancellation of GST registration dated 18 February 2021 for non-filing of returns under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court noted that cancellation would prevent the assessee from doing business and raising invoices, which could harm tax recovery, and that the revenue did not allege tax evasion. Relying on Subhankar Golder, the court set aside the cancellation and appellate orders, directing conditional restoration upon filing all pending returns and paying tax, interest, fine and penalty within stipulated time.

The assessee assailed a GST demand order and consequential recovery for FY 2023-24 alleging inadmissible ITC of Rs. 8.49 crore under section 74 read with section 122. Although the assessee filed a reply and requested personal hearing, the proper officer passed the order under section 74(9) on the same day without prior intimation of any hearing date. The High Court held this violated the mandatory hearing requirement under section 75(4) and principles of natural justice, set aside the order, and permitted fresh adjudication after due notice and hearing.

The assessee filed a writ challenging a GST order dated 19.12.2023 under section 73 for AY 2017-18, after an earlier writ had been withdrawn with liberty to refile due to objections on delay and non-mention of date of knowledge. The revenue opposed the writ as highly belated, citing Supreme Court authority. The High Court refused to go into merits and disposed of the writ by permitting the assessee to file a statutory appeal under section 107 with pre-deposit and a delay-condonation application, to be considered by the appellate authorit

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under Section 74 of the CGST Act, holding that where an effective statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. It ruled that exceptions of lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice were not established. The Court observed that issues raised involved factual adjudication, which must be examined by appellate authorities. It emphasized that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies. However, liberty was granted to file an appeal within four weeks without limitation bar.

The assessee filed a writ challenging an order confirming GST demand under section 74 for FY 2018–2019 for alleged wrongful ITC on goods-less invoices from a non-existent supplier. It contended that earlier section 73 proceedings under the SGST Act for FY 2019–2020 barred the later action under section 6(2)(b) and that section 75(4) was violated due to lack of hearing/non-consideration of reply. The Delhi High Court held there was no overlap in period or subject matter and the reply was considered; the writ was dismissed, leaving the assessee to appeal under section 107 with writ time excluded for limitation.

The High Court examined a case where the taxpayer challenged an appellate order denying transitional input tax credit and retaining part of the tax liability.

This petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by respondent No.4, i.e. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Shimla, H.P.

A complaint was filed against a real estate developer for not passing on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) after the introduction of GST, as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act.

The Bombay High Court held that GST is not leviable on affiliation fees collected by a statutory university from affiliated colleges. The Court ruled that granting affiliation is a statutory and regulatory function under the Universities Act, not a commercial or business activity. Hence, such activity does not qualify as “supply” under Section 7 of the CGST Act and cannot be taxed under Section 9. The Court further held that issuance of show cause notice under Section 74 itself lacked jurisdiction. Accordingly, GST demand, interest, and penalty were quashed and the petition was allowed.

The Delhi High Court held that writ petition challenging rejection of GST refund is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy under Section 112 is available. The Court observed that the petitioner was granted adequate opportunity of hearing at both adjudication and appellate stages, and the grievance related to correctness of findings rather than violation of natural justice. It emphasized that errors in exercise of jurisdiction do not amount to lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226 and directed the petitioner to avail appellate remedy before GSTAT.

The Gauhati High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without assigning reasons in the order is invalid and violative of principles of natural justice. The Court observed that even if the assessee fails to respond to the show cause notice or appear for hearing, the proper officer must pass a speaking order in compliance with Rule 22 and Form GST REG-19. A non-speaking order reflects non-application of mind and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned cancellation order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the stage of show cause notice, granting the assessee opportunity to respond or regularize defaults.