harkhand High Court allowed writ petition of assessee who was denied Input Tax Credit due to supplier’s failure to file GSTR-1. Court held State GST authorities cannot shirk responsibility based on CGST jurisdiction and must act under Section 76 of JGST Act against tax-collecting defaulter. Costs imposed.

Calcutta High Court held that denial of benefit for voluntary reversal of wrongly availed ITC due to clerical error in Form GST DRC-03 is unjustified. The Court ruled that this was not a case of tax evasion but an inadvertent lapse in declaring the correct tax period. It set aside orders passed under Sections 73 and 107 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, also quashing the recovery notice issued under Section 79.

The petitioner challenged the imposition of 5% GST on kerosene oil supplied via PDS. The GST Council had decided the rate reduction upon expert committee review, noting minimal price impact.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging non-entertainment of a GST appeal due to non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST/WBGST Act. The Court held that statutory requirements are binding, and failure to pay pre-deposit barred the appellate authority from admitting the appeal.

Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of condonation of delay in appeal under Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act. The Court upheld that delay of 7 months and 20 days, exceeding the statutory limit, was unjustified as the petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause. It held that service through the GST portal is valid under Section 169 and rejected pleas of ignorance or medical emergencies as insufficient.

The High Court allowed refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 49(6) read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, holding that closure of business does not disentitle refund when no express legal prohibition exists.

Advisory to File Pending GST Returns Before 3-Year Deadline

The Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment order passed without effective service and opportunity of hearing. Though notices were uploaded on the portal, the Court held that the officer failed to use alternate prescribed modes under Section 169. The matter is remanded after directing payment of 25% disputed tax.

Challenging the order passed under Section 107 of the WBGST /CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 11th November 2024 and the demand raised by the respondents in From GST APL – 04 dated 12th November 2024 in respect of the tax period 2017-18 to 2018-19, the instant writ petition has been filed.