Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Himatnagar, Gujarat

Armoured Vehicles Nigam Limited, Avadi, Chennai

Institute Of Seismological Research, Gandhinagar, Gujarat

Bhopal Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kolkata, West Bengal

The assessee challenged a GST demand/order in Form DRC-07 dated 12.09.2024 issued after a summary show cause notice in Form DRC-01, alleging denial of input tax credit without considering its detailed reply and documents. The High Court recorded that the reply/documents were not considered while passing DRC-07. Accordingly, it set aside the DRC-07 order and directed the competent authority to reconsider the objections and documents and pass a speaking order within the stipulated time.

The assessee challenged state GST proceedings initiated through DRC-01A (intimation) and DRC-01 (show cause) for FY 2022-23, alleging non-consideration of its replies/documents supporting input tax credit and raising procedural and jurisdictional objections; it did not press its constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c). The High Court disposed of the writ by directing the competent authority to accept and consider fresh objections with documents within 30 days and to pass a speaking order within six weeks thereafter, else proceed according to law.

The GST Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Principal Bench, held that the respondent builder had profiteered by not fully passing on the additional Input Tax Credit benefit accrued under the GST regime to homebuyers as mandated under section 171 of the CGST Act. After reconsideration, the DGAP revised the profiteered amount to Rs. 71.37 lakh excluding GST. The Tribunal upheld inclusion of ITC on input services in profiteering computation and ruled that benefit passed through price adjustment constituted valid compliance. The respondent was directed to refund the profiteered amount along with GST and 18% interest. Penalty proceedings under section 171(3A) were also held to be attracted.

The Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of the Special Leave Petitions after the petitioners relied upon a similar Allahabad High Court decision granting remand in identical circumstances. Liberty was granted to file review petitions before the High Court for reconsideration of the dispute.

The assessee filed a writ challenging rejection of its GST refund claim under Section 54 as time-barred. Although it replied to the show cause notice and requested a virtual personal hearing, the department passed the rejection order without fixing any hearing date. The revenue argued that a hearing date was mentioned in the notice and that an appeal under Section 107 was available. The High Court held that the CGST Rules require an opportunity of hearing before rejecting a refund and quashed the order, remitting the matter for fresh decision

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, who was working as an assistant in the office of a Chartered Accountant and is also a law graduate, was allegedly involved in filing fake GST returns, generating fake invoices/e-way bills and preparing forged documents for the purpose of evasion of tax.