Bengal Gas Company Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal

Corrigendum Finance Department, Ranchi, Jharkhand

Maharajpur Nagar Palika Parishad, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh

Corrigendum Invitation For Experienced Firms Of Chartered Accountants For Internal Audit

HLL Lifecare Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

Gujarat Medical Service Corporation Limited, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat

Bharatpur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Bharatpur, Rajasthan

In a writ petition under Article 226, the assessee challenged rejection of its GST refund claim on the ground of non-production of a BRC for an export invoice, contending that the FIRC and related documents had been submitted but ignored. The Bombay High Court found that the matter should be reconsidered without prejudice to the revenue, quashed the rejection order, and remanded the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication with a reasoned order after hearing and considering all documents, keeping all contentions open.

The writ petition challenged GST recovery notices issued after the first appellate authority dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee contended it had already paid the entire disputed tax (CGST and SGST) as shown in the Electronic Liability Ledger and only interest/penalty remained, and that it intended to file a Tribunal appeal within the permitted time. The High Court held that, prima facie, payment of the tax component attracted section 112(9) CGST Act, staying recovery, and set aside the DRC-13 notices, reserving liberty to revenue if payment discrepancies emerge.

The writ petition challenged an order-in-original disallowing/raising issues on Input Tax Credit on the basis of alleged mismatches in GST returns (GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B vs GSTR-9). The assessee contended that it had filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice with a reconciliation statement, but the authority neither afforded an effective opportunity of hearing nor considered the reconciliation, while stating that no reconciliation was submitted. The High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to explain the reconciliation.

The writ petition challenged a section 74 GST demand for April 2020–March 2021 affirmed in first appeal. The assessee pleaded that a second appeal under section 112 could not be filed as the GST Appellate Tribunal was not functional. The revenue accepted this but insisted that section 112(8) pre-deposit is mandatory. The High Court referred to section 112(8) and the notification dated 17.09.2025 allowing Tribunal appeals to be filed up to 30.06.2026, indicating the remedy lies before GSTAT subject to statutory deposit and timelines.

After an audit under section 65, proceedings under section 73 resulted in a demand of tax, interest and penalty, which was partly reduced in appeal under section 107 to Rs. 55,62,048/-. The assessee invoked Article 226 alleging misclassification of export of iron ore fines as composite supply rather than supply of goods. The High Court refused to examine the merits, holding that an effective alternative remedy of appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal under section 112 was available, and dismissed the writ with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.