The Calcutta High Court has set aside an ex-parte appellate order passed under GST law, holding that the principles of natural justice were not properly followed and that the taxpayer was denied a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Delhi High Court has set aside a retrospective cancellation of GST registration, holding that a vague show cause notice and denial of proper opportunity of hearing violate basic principles of natural justice.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the respondent.

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief(s) :

The GST Appellate Authority accepted the DGAP report after the respondent builder voluntarily agreed to deposit Rs.67.02 crore towards profiteering. The Authority directed payment of the admitted amount to eligible homebuyers within three months along with applicable interest, and ordered submission of a compliance report thereafter.

Request for Release of Seized Stock during Search Operation under GST

Interest & Late Fee under GST

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the respondent.

This writ petition has been filed against an adjudication order dated February 24, 2025 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017/ West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the said Act of 2017).

The Madras High Court set aside an ex parte GST order passed solely on portal-based service without granting personal hearing. Holding that effective service under section 169 requires exploring alternative modes when there is no response, the Court remanded the matter subject to payment of 25% of disputed tax and directed fresh adjudication after hearing.

Advisory on Interest Collection and Related Enhancements in GSTR-3B

The Calcutta High Court granted conditional relief to an assessee whose GST appeal was dismissed for delay under Section 107. Though the explanation regarding non-awareness of the adjudication order uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab was not fully accepted, the Court held that denial of appellate remedy would cause irreparable prejudice. To balance equities, the Court permitted the appeal to be heard on merits subject to payment of costs.