The assessee challenged a penalty order under section 129(3) passed after interception of a goods vehicle during transit, alleging proper documents existed and raising jurisdictional objections. The revenue objected that an effective alternative remedy of appeal under section 107 was available. The Calcutta High Court declined to entertain the writ at this stage, disposed of it with liberty to file an appeal within three weeks, and directed the appellate authority to decide all issues, including jurisdiction, expeditiously within an expected eight-week timeline.

The assessee challenged a GST detention/penalty order passed under section 129(3) after its vehicle carrying goods was intercepted despite allegedly having valid e-way bill and invoices, and after it obtained release by paying penalty under section 129(1)(a). The revenue objected that an appeal under section 107 was the proper remedy. The High Court declined to entertain the writ at this stage, disposed it with liberty to appeal within three weeks, and directed expeditious disposal on merits including jurisdiction.

The writ petition challenged an order under section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act for July 2017 to March 2018, passed after two DRC-01 show cause notices that did not mention any hearing date. Although the assessee filed a belated DRC-06 reply seeking a personal hearing, the revenue passed the order without granting any hearing. The Court held that section 75(4) requires a hearing before an adverse determination and set aside the order, directing fresh adjudication after restoring portal access.

A regular bail application under BNSS was filed after arrest in a DGGI case alleging fraudulent availment of ITC of about Rs. 11.44 crores through fake invoices without supply of goods, involving allegedly non-operational supplier firms. The revenue opposed bail citing electronic and banking evidence and statements under CGST section 70. The High Court granted bail, noting the case was documentary, complaint had been filed, custodial interrogation was not shown necessary, offences carry up to five years and are compoundable, and no specific risk of tampering was demonstrated.

Draft Reply Determination of Tax and Penalty u/s 74A - Latest InformationDraft Reply Determination of Tax and Penalty u/s 74A - Latest Information

The assessee challenged an appellate order rejecting a GST refund for SEZ supplies on the ground that endorsed invoices by the SEZ specified officer were not filed at the refund stage and that additional evidence could not be produced in appeal. The Bombay High Court held that Rule 112 allows additional evidence in appeal in specified circumstances and the appellate authority wrongly ignored these exceptions. The order was set aside and the matter remanded to the appellate authority to decide afresh after considering the additional evidence.

The assessee sought reimbursement of GST paid on frozen meat supplied to the Indian Army for FY 2019–20, after the Army refused payment citing clarifications treating the supply as GST-exempt under Notification No. 2/2017. The Delhi High Court held that advance rulings of RAAR/RAAAR had already determined the goods were supplied in unit containers, taxable at 5%, and not exempt; under Section 103 CGST Act these rulings bound the assessee. The petition was allowed and reimbursement directed within three months, failing which interest at 6% p.a. applies

Seeks to extends the due date for furnishing the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the month of March, 2026 till the twenty-first day of April, 2026

Staff Selection Commission, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh

Department Of Posts, Agartala, Tripura

S N Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal

Bengal Gas Company Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal