Mr. Faizul Haque and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Application for Stay of GST Demand During Appeal

Request for Early Fixation of Appeal – [Appeal No. & Date]

Request for Cross-Examination in Ongoing Adjudication Proceedings

Subject: Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Petitioner challenged provisional attachment of bank accounts under section 83 of the MGST Act during investigation alleging tax liability on free handover of redevelopment flats to society members and MHADA. High Court held that attachment orders and rejection of objections were unreasoned and mechanically passed, violating safeguards laid down in Radha Krishan Industries and Originative Trading Pvt. Ltd. Since no reasons were recorded while maintaining attachment, the orders were quashed and matter remanded for fresh consideration after granting opportunity of hearing.

The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition challenging a government notification dated 28 December 2023 issued under the GST law which extended the time limit for passing certain orders by tax authorities.

The Allahabad High Court heard a writ petition filed by a taxpayer engaged in the business of wireless networking equipment. The dispute arose after the goods purchased by the petitioner were intercepted by the tax authorities during transportation because Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled by the transporter. Although physical verification of the goods revealed no discrepancy, the authority imposed a penalty of ?9.5 lakh.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging seizure, prohibition, and cancellation of GST registration, holding that such orders are appealable under the GST Act. The petitioner was directed to avail statutory remedies. Pending application for release of goods was ordered to be decided within thirty days.

In this decision, the Madras High Court examined the validity of Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules mandating same-month distribution of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by an Input Service Distributor (ISD). The petitioner challenged the rule as ultra vires Section 20 of the CGST Act and arbitrary under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The Court held that “credit available for distribution” must be interpreted harmoniously with Section 16, meaning only eligible ITC, after fulfillment of statutory conditions, can be distributed. Distribution cannot be compelled merely on receipt of invoice. The rule was read down accordingly, granting relief to the assessee.

Gujarat AAR held that “Semen Sorting Services” involving separation of X and Y chromosome-bearing bovine sperm qualify as exempt services under Heading 9986. The Authority ruled that the activity constitutes an intermediate production process in relation to rearing of animals and qualifies as job work under Section 2(68) of the CGST Act. Rejecting classification under residual SAC 998399, it held that specific entry for support services to animal husbandry prevails. Accordingly, the services are exempt under Entry 24(i)(iii) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R)

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging appellate order under Section 107 and adjudication under Section 73 of the GST Act. Since the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted, the Court held that statutory remedy was available and directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.