Draft reply to a Notice for Cancellation of GST Registration issued after suspension, citing Rule 21(d) and provision of Rule 10A of the CGST Rules, 2017:

Draft reply to a Notice for Cancellation of GST Registration issued after suspension, citing Rule 21(d) and provision of Rule 10A of the CGST Rules, 2017:

Draft reply to a notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the SGST Act, 2017—i.e., a notice to a third person (typically a customer, debtor, or bank) directing them to pay the dues of a defaulting taxpayer to the Government:

Handling of Inadvertently Rejected records on IMS

Writ petition challenging assessment order based on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch, including supplier discount issues, is dismissed. The Court held that such factual disputes must be adjudicated through statutory appeal under GST law. Liberty granted to file appeal within 15 days, subject to pre-deposit compliance under section 107.

The Patna High Court quashed a GST demand order for FY 2018–19 on the ground of violation of Section 75(4), holding that personal hearing was not granted. The Court followed its earlier Division Bench ruling and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after granting a personal hearing to the assessee.

The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) for not filing returns for six months. After filing pending returns and clearing tax dues, the petitioner sought restoration. The Court allowed the petitioner to approach the authority within 2 months, directing the authority to restore the registration on compliance with Rule 22 of CGST Rules.

The Orissa High Court quashed a GST demand order issued for FY 2017–18, holding it unsustainable in light of the GST Council’s 31st meeting decision and retrospective amendment to Section 50 by the Finance Act, 2021. The department conceded applicability of a prior ruling, leading to remand for reconsideration.

Madras High Court condoned a delay of 129 days in filing GST appeal due to non-service of physical assessment order. It allowed the appeal to be heard on merits, observing that uploading the order on the portal without physical service denied the assessee fair opportunity.

Calcutta High Court allows conditional release of goods seized during inspection under Section 67, where the petitioner supplies exclusively to the Ministry of Defence. Court permits release against 20% bank guarantee and directs that no final decision be taken on show cause under Section 122 without court’s leave.

Madras High Court remanded the assessment orders for AYs 2018–19 to 2021–22 due to procedural lapses in hearing the assessee. The Court set aside the impugned order and granted the petitioner one final opportunity to submit objections, subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent-Union of India and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.