Hon’ble Justice Vikas Budhwar heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel for the State. The Standing Counsel stated that he had sufficient instructions to argue the matter, did not intend to file a counter affidavit, and agreed that the writ petition could be decided on the basis of the documents already on record. With the consent of both parties, the Court proceeded to decide the writ petition at the admission stage.

The Court heard counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel representing the Finance and Taxation authorities. With the agreement of both sides, the matter was taken up for disposal based on the materials available on record.

Hon’ble Justice V. Srishananda heard counsel appearing for both parties. The petitioner, who is the accused in the case, challenged the ruling of the trial Magistrate that allowed the complainant to refer to the contents of the complaint while giving evidence.

Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith, and the learned Senior Standing Counsel waived service of notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of both parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing since it involved a short issue.

The Court heard counsel for the petitioner, the State respondents, and the Union of India. The petition challenged an order dated December 18, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the GST law.

Justice Sandipkumar C. More heard the matter finally with the consent of both parties. The petitioner sought compensation of ?10,00,000 alleging that he had been illegally detained by GST authorities before his formal arrest.

- GST Appellate Authority remanded anti-profiteering matter for fresh investigation where developer claimed it had passed higher benefit to buyers than ITC benefit calculated by DGAP. Authority held additional data and cost escalation analysis submitted by respondent required verification. DGAP was directed to re-examine whether commensurate ITC benefit was passed to buyers. No final finding on profiteering is recorded and matter is sent back for re-investigation.

Allahabad High Court held that where supplier’s GST registration was suspended and goods were transported without valid e-way bill, tax invoice issued during suspension cannot be treated as valid document. Petitioner cannot claim release as owner under Section 129(1)(a). Detention and penalty under Section 129(1)(b) was held valid. Court distinguished earlier judgments where documents were otherwise valid and dismissed writ petition.

Case studies on minor e-Way bill errors and relief by courts

GST on Vouchers, Coupons and Loyalty Points

The present writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging the action of the tax authorities in detaining the petitioner’s goods and vehicle during transit, along with the subsequent order imposing tax and penalty.

Reply to Notice issued under Section 151 of CGST Act, 2017 – Regarding TDS-related Mismatch