The assessee filed a writ petition challenging an order of the GST appellate authority rejecting the appeal as time-barred, alleging that the rejection was made without hearing in breach of Section 107(8) and natural justice. The revenue argued that an efficacious alternative remedy existed under the GST statute. The Orissa High Court held that the alleged procedural violation and related factual issues could be examined by the statutory appellate forum/tribunal and, following Radha Krishan Industries, refused to entertain the writ, granting liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

he writ petition assailed the first appellate order under the State GST law and an attachment notice, arguing that a second appeal could not be filed due to non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal. The court relied on CBIC Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST and the notified timelines for filing appeals, and disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file an undertaking to appeal when the Tribunal becomes operational and to deposit the equivalent pre-deposit within 15 days, whereupon recovery of the balance demand would remain stayed.

In a writ petition, the assessee challenged a GST demand order for FY 2021-22 alleging short reversal of ITC on common inputs for taxable and exempt supplies. The assessee had filed detailed replies, reconciliations and relied on CBIC circulars, also noting that similar proceedings for FY 2020-21 were dropped. The High Court found the order unreasoned and based on an unsupported assertion that the matter was “sub-judice,” and quashed it, permitting fresh adjudication after proper consideration and hearing.

The assessee challenged GST advance ruling orders classifying its cut tobacco product as “manufactured chewing tobacco” under HSN/CETH 2403 99 10 instead of CETH 2401 20 90. The High Court held that despite section 103 making advance rulings binding, they remain open to challenge under Articles 226/227, though judicial review is limited. Since an earlier writ appeal involving an identical process had been decided differently, sustaining the impugned rulings would cause unequal treatment; the court set aside the authorities orders and allowed the appeal

The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled after inspection and a show cause notice, as the authorities found the business premises inadequate for the scale of transactions and the assessee could not substantiate actual movement of goods supporting ITC of about Rs.18.62 crore, producing only e-way bill printouts. The appellate authority and the single judge upheld cancellation. Dismissing the intra-court appeal, the High Court held that adequate opportunity was given, Section 29(2)(a) empowered cancellation for contravention, and material indicated fake invoices/fabricated documents, with parallel action initiated against suppliers.

The writ petition challenged cancellation of GST registration dated 18 February 2021 for non-filing of returns under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court noted that cancellation would prevent the assessee from doing business and raising invoices, which could harm tax recovery, and that the revenue did not allege tax evasion. Relying on Subhankar Golder, the court set aside the cancellation and appellate orders, directing conditional restoration upon filing all pending returns and paying tax, interest, fine and penalty within stipulated time.

The assessee assailed a GST demand order and consequential recovery for FY 2023-24 alleging inadmissible ITC of Rs. 8.49 crore under section 74 read with section 122. Although the assessee filed a reply and requested personal hearing, the proper officer passed the order under section 74(9) on the same day without prior intimation of any hearing date. The High Court held this violated the mandatory hearing requirement under section 75(4) and principles of natural justice, set aside the order, and permitted fresh adjudication after due notice and hearing.

The assessee filed a writ challenging a GST order dated 19.12.2023 under section 73 for AY 2017-18, after an earlier writ had been withdrawn with liberty to refile due to objections on delay and non-mention of date of knowledge. The revenue opposed the writ as highly belated, citing Supreme Court authority. The High Court refused to go into merits and disposed of the writ by permitting the assessee to file a statutory appeal under section 107 with pre-deposit and a delay-condonation application, to be considered by the appellate authorit

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under Section 74 of the CGST Act, holding that where an effective statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. It ruled that exceptions of lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice were not established. The Court observed that issues raised involved factual adjudication, which must be examined by appellate authorities. It emphasized that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies. However, liberty was granted to file an appeal within four weeks without limitation bar.

The assessee filed a writ challenging an order confirming GST demand under section 74 for FY 2018–2019 for alleged wrongful ITC on goods-less invoices from a non-existent supplier. It contended that earlier section 73 proceedings under the SGST Act for FY 2019–2020 barred the later action under section 6(2)(b) and that section 75(4) was violated due to lack of hearing/non-consideration of reply. The Delhi High Court held there was no overlap in period or subject matter and the reply was considered; the writ was dismissed, leaving the assessee to appeal under section 107 with writ time excluded for limitation.

The High Court examined a case where the taxpayer challenged an appellate order denying transitional input tax credit and retaining part of the tax liability.

This petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by respondent No.4, i.e. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Shimla, H.P.