This case presents a scenario which is becoming common place before us in this Court. When parties move applications for anticipatory bail or for regular bail, voluntary offer is made by their counsel that the parties would deposit substantial amounts to show the bona fide and secure their liberty. The Courts` hearing the bail applications are thereby foreclosed from considering the merits of the matter and orders are made recording the undertaking of counsel about willingness to deposit amounts and orders for anticipatory bails/bails are granted.

This case presents a scenario which is becoming common place before us in this Court. When parties move applications for anticipatory bail or for regular bail, voluntary offer is made by their counsel that the parties would deposit substantial amounts to show the bona fide and secure their liberty. The Courts` hearing the bail applications are thereby foreclosed from considering the merits of the matter and orders are made recording the undertaking of counsel about willingness to deposit amounts and orders for anticipatory bails/bails are granted.

The petitioner’s rectification application under Section 161 of the TNGST Act was rejected. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the writ, and the Supreme Court upheld this view.

We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. However, we record the statement of Mr. Balbir Singh, learned senior counsel given on instructions that the undertaking, as indicated in the order passed by the High Court, will be given and that the amount deposited in the bank shall remain unaltered.

The Supreme Court observed that the Section 74 show cause notice issued to the assessee lacked essential material particulars, containing only figures without factual basis for allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. Finding prima facie merit, the Court issued notice, granted stay of further proceedings, and permitted dasti service.

We are of the opinion that it would not be necessary to issue notice and put the respondent on notice in view of the order that we propose to pass - an order which would have no adverse impact upon the respondent. In the event it does have any such effect, it would be open to the respondent to seek reopening of this matter.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order dismissing the writ petition in a case involving alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through bogus firms. Affirming relegation to statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the Court extended time to file appeal till 16.03.2026, directing that it be decided on merits subject to requisite pre-deposit.

The assessee challenged two GST assessment orders alleging it could not reply to show cause notices because documents referred to therein were uploaded on an inaccessible portal, making the orders effectively ex parte. The High Court refused to entertain the writ due to the alternative remedy of appeal under section 107 of the U.P. GST Act requiring a 10% pre-deposit, and the appellate authority earlier rejected appeals for non-deposit. The Supreme Court granted interim relief by directing a reduced deposit of Rs. 3.50 crore, issuing notice thereafter, and restraining coercive recovery meanwhile.

Delay condoned.