The writ petition challenged disallowance of ITC for FY 2018-19 under Section 16(4) CGST Act and the order confirming demand, interest and penalty. During the proceedings, Section 16 was amended by inserting sub-sections (5) and (6), extending the time limit for availing ITC for specified financial years up to 30.11.2021. The Court held the challenge became unnecessary, directed payment only of excess utilized amount and interest, and set aside the order-in-original.

The writ petition challenged cancellation of GST registration under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for non-filing of returns. The High Court noted that tribunal hearings had not commenced and that cancellation, absent any allegation of tax evasion, would prevent the assessee from issuing invoices and carrying on business, ultimately harming revenue. Relying on a prior Division Bench decision, the Court set aside the cancellation and appellate orders, directing restoration upon filing all pending returns and paying tax, interest, fine and penalty within stipulated time.

The petition challenged cancellation of GST registration dated 27.05.2024 for non-filing of returns under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. Though a public notice indicated the Appellate Tribunal was set up, hearings had not commenced, and the Court entertained the writ as cancellation prevented business and invoice issuance. Finding no allegation of tax evasion, and relying on Subhankar Golder, the Court set aside the cancellation and appellate orders, conditional on filing all default returns and paying dues within four weeks.

The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled after a show-cause notice went unanswered. The assessee filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking restoration. Relying on its approach in similar cases and the revenue’s concession that registration can be restored upon compliance, the High Court disposed of the petition directing the assessee to apply for restoration within seven days. Restoration was ordered subject to formalities, and the assessee had to file pending returns and pay tax, penalty and interest within seven days thereafter.

The writ petition challenged cancellation of GST registration dated 26 March 2025 for non-filing of returns. The Court noted that tribunal hearings had not commenced and that cancellation would prevent the assessee from doing business and raising invoices, which would also harm revenue collection. As there was no allegation of tax evasion, the Court set aside the cancellation and the appellate order, directing restoration of registration upon filing all default returns and paying tax, interest, fine and penalty within four weeks, failing which the petition would stand dismissed.

Goods and vehicle carrying pan masala were detained after interception and issuance of MOV-02, but the revenue passed no formal seizure/detention order for over four months and insisted on the assessee’s personal appearance, citing doubts about the firm’s existence and ownership. The court held this approach unjustified: invoices accompanied the goods and the 31.12.2018 circular clarifies ownership for Section 129, while Section 116 allows representation by advocate. The writ was disposed with directions for hearing, notice to consignee, deposit under Section 129(1)(a), and a Section 129(5) order within 48 hours, enabling release.

Reply to Intimation regarding non-filing of GSTR-9 / GSTR-9C for FY

Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST for respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

The assessee filed a writ petition against an order cancelling its GST registration retrospectively from 17.12.2022, contending that its reply to the Form GST REG-17 show cause notice was not considered. The revenue alleged ineligible input tax credit and proposed proceedings under Section 74 read with Section 122. Observing that the reply appeared to have been sent by post before the cancellation order, the court directed that the cancellation be treated as suspension pending fresh adjudication, and ordered consideration of the reply on merits with hearing within two weeks.

The writ petition challenged a service tax recovery notice issued on the basis of an earlier Order-in-Original confirming demand with interest and penalty. The assessee contended that neither the show cause notice nor hearing intimation was served and the adjudication order was received only later by email, amounting to breach of natural justice. The revenue claimed communications were sent by registered post. The court directed fresh proceedings after supplying the show cause notice and granting time and personal hearing, and set aside both the recovery notice and the Order-in-Original.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the action initiated by the tax authorities on the ground that proceedings were already initiated earlier by another authority on the same subject matter.

The petitioner filed an application seeking regular bail in a complaint filed by the Directorate of GST Intelligence alleging wrongful availment of input tax credit through fake invoices.