For easy reference to gather the substratum of the dispute, the order dated 31.10.2025 and the order dated 20.11.2025 are extracted hereunder:

The Allahabad High Court dealt with a writ challenging cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner claimed late knowledge of the cancellation order. The Court held that limitation for appeal would run from the date of knowledge and, applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal without limitation objection.

The Calcutta High Court partly set aside an appellate order which enhanced GST liability by adding alleged excess zero-rated turnover without prior notice or hearing. The Court held that such enhancement violated the mandatory procedure under Section 107(11). The appellate authority also failed to consider rectification already made in annual returns. The matter is remanded for limited reconsideration after granting due opportunity to the assessee.

The Calcutta High Court partly set aside an ex-parte appellate order confirming denial of ITC on import of goods and reversal of ITC for supplier default. The Court relied on affidavits from Customs authorities clarifying that IGST was paid but not reflected on the GST portal due to manual Bills of Entry. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, while limited relief on supplier-default ITC was made conditional upon payment of costs.

The Calcutta High Court set aside both the appellate order dismissing the appeal on limitation and the underlying adjudication order, holding that service of notice only through the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab without proof of SMS/e-mail intimation and denial of personal hearing violated principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded for fresh adjudication after permitting the assessee to file reply and granting a personal hearing.

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order imposing penalties and recommending prosecution. The Court held that the petitioner had been duly served with notice under Section 74 and granted multiple opportunities of personal hearing. Since an effective alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 was available and not availed, the writ petition is held not maintainable.

Composition Scheme: Benefits, Restrictions, and Recent Changes

CA Praveen Sharma Ki Desk Se (CAPS)

The Orissa High Court condoned delay in seeking revocation of cancelled SGST registration where the assessee expressed willingness to pay all statutory dues. Relying on a coordinate bench ruling, the Court directed consideration of revocation application subject to payment and compliance.

The Orissa High Court condoned delay in seeking revocation of cancelled GST registration where the assessee expressed willingness to pay all statutory dues. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Court directed authorities to consider revocation application subject to payment of tax, interest, late fee and penalty.

The Orissa High Court dealt with a writ petition challenging a demand order passed under section 74 and affirmed in first appeal, filed due to non-constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal. During pendency, GSTAT became functional and appeal timelines were notified. The Court held that once the statutory forum is operational, disputes must be adjudicated there. It reiterated that mandatory pre-deposit under section 112(8) cannot be waived. The writ is disposed with directions to deposit and file appeal before GSTAT.

The Calcutta High Court recently set aside a GST demand relating to levy of tax on ocean freight for imported goods, reaffirming the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in the Mohit Minerals case.