Sometimes taxpayers pay tax voluntarily during investigation using DRC-03.

ELIGIBILITY CONDITION FOR TAKING INPUT TAX CREDIT

A taxpayer challenged the tax department’s orders denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) and also requested a refund of the pre-deposit made during the appeal.

The writ challenged cancellation of the assessee’s GST registration for non-filing of returns for over six months under Section 29(2)(c), contending the cancellation order lacked reasons and that pending returns and dues (tax, interest, late fee) were later cleared but revocation could not be filed due to portal time-bar. Though revenue objected on delay and availability of second appeal, the Court, noting serious civil consequences and Rule 22(4) proviso, disposed of the petition directing the assessee to apply within two months and requiring the authority to consider restoration expeditiously upon full compliance.

A taxpayer challenged the orders passed by the tax department denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) and also requested refund of the amount deposited during the appeal.

The GST Appellate Tribunal has held that Tata Play profiteered by not passing on the tax benefit received after the introduction of GST to its subscribers.

The taxpayer challenged an assessment order dated 22.12.2025, under which tax, interest and penalty were imposed because the department found differences in turnover reported in GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C.

- In a writ petition under Article 226, the assessee challenged suspension of GST registration, a show cause notice dated 18.02.2026, and a recovery/provisional attachment action dated 03.02.2026 as arbitrary and contrary to natural justice. During hearing, revenue stated that the suspension would be withdrawn and registration restored. The court disposed of the petition by accepting this statement, directing a time-bound hearing and order on the show cause notice, and directing that the recovery notice not be acted upon unless due process is followed.

The writ petition challenged a GST demand for April 2021–March 2022 issued after a DRC-01 summary dated 24.09.2025 and a DRC-07 order dated 26.11.2025. The assessee argued that no proper show cause notice under section 74 was served and no hearing was granted, as the hearing column in DRC-01 was blank. The court held that Rule 142 requires a summary only in addition to a valid section 74 notice, and section 75(4) mandates hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated, rendering the impugned action contrary to natural justice.

The writ petition challenged a GST demand for July 2017–March 2018 raised under Section 73 on the basis of a DRC-01 “summary” with an attachment showing tax determination, followed by a DRC-07 order. The assessee argued that no proper show cause notice was served, the uploaded documents were not duly authenticated as per Rule 26, and no hearing was granted despite an adverse decision. The Gauhati High Court held that a proper SCN is mandatory and hearing under Section 75(4) cannot be bypassed, and accordingly interfered with the impugned demand

The assessee challenged GST proceedings for April 2020–March 2021 where only a DRC-01 summary with a tax-determination attachment was uploaded, followed by a DRC-07 order citing non-payment within 30 days. The court considered whether a valid section 73 show cause notice existed, whether the attachment could substitute the statutory notice/order, and whether hearing under section 75(4) was granted. It held that a proper, authenticated show cause notice and mandatory hearing are required; the impugned action was not compliant with law and natural justice.

GST Penalty under Section 122 – Practical Case Study