Pidilite Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Facts:
The petitioner, a manufacturer, transitioned input tax credit into GST regime by filing TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms.
An audit was conducted, followed by a show cause notice demanding recovery of transitional credit with interest and penalty.
Verification of records was carried out by departmental officers, but the verification reports were not furnished to the petitioner.
Despite request and objections, the adjudicating authority passed an order confirming demand without granting opportunity to respond to such reports.
Court Decision:
The Court held that non-furnishing of verification reports, which formed the basis of the impugned order, amounted to breach of principles of natural justice.
It observed that conclusions were drawn without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the verification findings.
The Court also noted that the order was passed in haste without complete verification of records.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5 February 2025 was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with directions to furnish verification reports and grant a proper hearing.
Other Case Law
M. Trade Links v. Union of India & Ors.
Challenge to validity and application of Input Tax Credit provisions under GST; denial of ITC due to supplier default and time limitation (Sections involved: Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017 & SGST Act)
Facts:The petitioners, registered dealers under GST, were denied Input Tax Credi...
Read MoreBengal Engineering vs State of West Bengal & Ors
Legality of GST assessment exceeding Show Cause Notice amount and denial of personal hearing under Sections 75(7) and 75(4) of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017.
The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudication Order dated...
Read MoreMaharaj Saran v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Whether the offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is bailable — the High Court having observed, while disposing of a writ of habeas corpus concerning the appellant’s detained son, that Section 66 is not, ex-facie, defined as
B A C K G R O U N DThe appellant’s son (the detenu) was detained at the airpor...
Read More