The Bombay High Court quashed a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act covering FY 2018–19 to 2022–23 in a consolidated manner. The Court held that the GST scheme contemplates assessment and limitation year-wise, linked to annual returns for each financial year. Clubbing multiple tax periods in a single notice violates the statutory structure and limitation provisions under Sections 73(10) and 74(10). Allegations of fraudulent ITC availment do not permit consolidation. Following its earlier decisions, the Court set aside the notice while granting liberty to issue fresh year-wise notices in accordance with law

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging order in Form GST DRC-07, holding that petitioner’s reply to show cause notice was duly considered and order passed on merits. As statutory appeal under Section 107 was available and within limitation, liberty was granted to file appeal.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside recovery orders demanding refund of IGST on exports, holding that Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, on which the demands were based, stood omitted without saving clause. Consequently, proceedings initiated under the omitted rule could not survive

The Madras High Court directed the department to dispose of the petitioner’s rectification application filed under Section 161 against a DRC-07 order confirming ITC reversal. The Court recorded the Government’s submission and granted 30 days time for decision, without adjudicating the merits of the ITC dispute.

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A. The Court held that ITC was blocked following inspection and recorded statements indicating fraudulent availment. Objection regarding lack of jurisdiction of the State Tax Officer was rejected, relying on earlier precedent. The Court granted liberty to submit representation and directed disposal after hearing.

The Allahabad High Court granted interim protection in a writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 15(3)(b) of the CGST Act concerning post-supply trade discounts. Finding a prima facie case, the Court restrained further recovery subject to 10% deposit of disputed tax and issued notice to the Attorney General

District Health Society, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh

District Health Society, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal

Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand

Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Department Of Defence, Shillong, Meghalaya