The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order passed under Section 73 where the assessee failed to reply to the show cause notice and attend personal hearing, leading to bank account attachment under Section 83. While the validity of limitation-extension notifications under Section 168A is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, granted opportunity to file reply and personal hearing, lifted provisional attachment subject to safeguards, and imposed costs for belated approach.

The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with an order raising demands for alleged fraudulent availment of ITC and relegated the assessee to the statutory appellate remedy. The Court clarified the correct appellate authority in cases adjudicated by common adjudicating authorities under DGGI investigations involving multiple jurisdictions. It held that the appeal lies before the Commissioner (Appeals) having territorial jurisdiction over the adjudicating authority, as per applicable notifications and CBIC circulars, and granted protection from limitation.

The petitioner was arrested in a GST offence case and sought regular bail. The department registered a case alleging offences relating to wrongful availment of input tax credit and the petitioner was taken into custody on 28.05.2025.

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. By consent of both sides, this writ is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

A case was registered alleging offences under the GST law and the petitioner was arrested on 28.05.2025. The petitioner filed this petition seeking bail in connection with that arrest.

The petitioner approached the High Court to challenge an assessment order dated 27.07.2021 for the tax period 01.12.2018 to 31.12.2018, which had been passed on the basis of a show cause notice dated 30.04.2021. The petitioner stated that the department proceeded against him due to a factual mistake and wrongly assessed “Subrat Rout”.

Heard Shri R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. Jain, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST.

The Court heard arguments from the petitioner’s counsel and the State’s counsel.

The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand raised under Section 73 where the show cause notice and adjudication order were issued in the name of a deceased proprietor. The Court held that proceedings against a dead person are void ab initio and liability under Section 93 can arise only after valid proceedings against legal representatives.

Panchayats And Rural Housing Department, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

BEML Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Alwar, Rajasthan