| S.No | Name | Date of Order | Subject | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nominee Works Committee, Kalavalla vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner. | 15-06-2026 | Validity of a GST assessment order in Form DRC-07 passed without the signature of the assessing officer, and condonation of delay where the order was served only by portal upload. | View Download |
BackgroundThe petitioner is a works contractor who executed works contracts for a State Government entity (Respondent No. 4). An assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 25.07.2023 was passed for FY 2022-23 levying GST at 18%, followed by recovery proceedings in Form GST DRC-16 dated 17.02.2026. The petitioner's underlying grievance was that the works attracted 12% under Notification No. 24/2017-CT(Rate) dated 21.09.2017, with 18% applying only from 18.07.2022 after Notification No. 3/2022-CT(Rate) dated 13.07.2022 omitted Sl. No. 3(vi) of the Table, and that interest and penalty were imposed at 18% without adjusting the 2% TDS. The writ, however, was decided on the narrow signature ground.FactsThe petitioner challenged the DRC-07 order on the sole ground that it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection of inordinate, unexplained delay. The petitioner submitted that the order was never served conventionally and that the Revenue relied only on uploading it to the portal. The Revenue contended that portal upload constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017. The Court noted a large number of registered persons had similarly pleaded inability to access the portal due to ignorance or non-communication by their authorised persons.Court Observations (verbatim)Para 11: "Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the order suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned order of assessment would have to be set aside."Para 12: "In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026."Para 13: "In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a signature, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing... This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. However, payments made after the date of order till today shall be taken into account as part payment of 20% directed to be paid." Final VerdictThe unsigned DRC-07 order and consequential DRC-16 are set aside and the matter remanded to the assessing officer for fresh assessment after hearing, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks. The writ period is excluded for limitation and all issues are left open.Cases Referred by the CourtA.V. Bhanoji Row vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) — W.P. No. 2830 of 2023, dt. 14.02.2023 (AP HC)SRK Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner — W.P. No. 29397 of 2023, dt. 10.11.2023 (AP HC)SRS Traders vs Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors — W.P. No. 5238 of 2024, dt. 19.03.2024 (AP HC)Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr — Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025 (Allahabad HC)W.P. No. 5397 of 2026 (AP HC — contrary view, holding portal upload sufficient service)W.P. No. 1474 of 2026 (Madras HC — on the 20% deposit condition) | ||||
| Nominee Works Committee, Kalavalla vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner. 15-06-2026 Validity of a GST assessment order in Form DRC-07 passed without the signature of the assessing officer, and condonation of delay where the order was served only by portal upload.BackgroundThe petitioner is a works contractor who executed works contracts for a State Government entity (Respondent No. 4). An assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 25.07.2023 was passed for FY 2022-23 levying GST at 18%, followed by recovery proceedings in Form GST DRC-16 dated 17.02.2026. The petitioner's underlying grievance was that the works attracted 12% under Notification No. 24/2017-CT(Rate) dated 21.09.2017, with 18% applying only from 18.07.2022 after Notification No. 3/2022-CT(Rate) dated 13.07.2022 omitted Sl. No. 3(vi) of the Table, and that interest and penalty were imposed at 18% without adjusting the 2% TDS. The writ, however, was decided on the narrow signature ground.FactsThe petitioner challenged the DRC-07 order on the sole ground that it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection of inordinate, unexplained delay. The petitioner submitted that the order was never served conventionally and that the Revenue relied only on uploading it to the portal. The Revenue contended that portal upload constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017. The Court noted a large number of registered persons had similarly pleaded inability to access the portal due to ignorance or non-communication by their authorised persons.Court Observations (verbatim)Para 11: "Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the order suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned order of assessment would have to be set aside."Para 12: "In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026."Para 13: "In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a signature, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing... This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. However, payments made after the date of order till today shall be taken into account as part payment of 20% directed to be paid." Final VerdictThe unsigned DRC-07 order and consequential DRC-16 are set aside and the matter remanded to the assessing officer for fresh assessment after hearing, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks. The writ period is excluded for limitation and all issues are left open.Cases Referred by the CourtA.V. Bhanoji Row vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) — W.P. No. 2830 of 2023, dt. 14.02.2023 (AP HC)SRK Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner — W.P. No. 29397 of 2023, dt. 10.11.2023 (AP HC)SRS Traders vs Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors — W.P. No. 5238 of 2024, dt. 19.03.2024 (AP HC)Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr — Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025 (Allahabad HC)W.P. No. 5397 of 2026 (AP HC — contrary view, holding portal upload sufficient service)W.P. No. 1474 of 2026 (Madras HC — on the 20% deposit condition) | ||||
| 2 | Tata Capital Limited v. Union of India | 03-03-2026 | An assessment order passed against a dissolved transferor despite prior written intimation of the amalgamation, with the successor having participated throughout. At issue: whether participation cures a jurisdictional defect, and the true scope of Section | View Download |
Background. Under a scheme of arrangement approved by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench on 24.11.2023, with an appointed date of 01.04.2023, the entire business of the transferor was vested in the petitioner and the transferor was dissolved without winding up. Although the petitioner informed the authorities by reply dated 29.03.2024 that the company no longer existed, notices and hearings continued in the dissolved company’s name and culminated in an assessment order dated 06.12.2024. The petitioner had participated in those proceedings.Observations of the Court. The Court set out Clause 7 of the sanctioned scheme, under which all legal, taxation and other proceedings by or against the transferor pending on the appointed date are to be continued and enforced by or against the transferee as if instituted by or against it. It followed Spice Enfotainment Ltd., Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and Kamala Muthiah, holding that proceedings pursued against a dissolved company are wholly without jurisdiction.On Section 87, the Court held that the provision only ensures that the authorities’ right to recover tax is protected and that the liability continues to be discharged. It does not deal at all with the question whether pending proceedings against a dissolved company may be continued; that question stands already decided by the Supreme Court, and Section 87 is not relevant to it. Participation by the petitioner did not cure the defect. The merits of the demand were expressly left open.Final verdict. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 06.12.2024 was set aside, leaving it open to the respondent authorities to undertake such action as may be permissible under law. | ||||
| Tata Capital Limited v. Union of India 03-03-2026 An assessment order passed against a dissolved transferor despite prior written intimation of the amalgamation, with the successor having participated throughout. At issue: whether participation cures a jurisdictional defect, and the true scope of SectionBackground. Under a scheme of arrangement approved by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench on 24.11.2023, with an appointed date of 01.04.2023, the entire business of the transferor was vested in the petitioner and the transferor was dissolved without winding up. Although the petitioner informed the authorities by reply dated 29.03.2024 that the company no longer existed, notices and hearings continued in the dissolved company’s name and culminated in an assessment order dated 06.12.2024. The petitioner had participated in those proceedings.Observations of the Court. The Court set out Clause 7 of the sanctioned scheme, under which all legal, taxation and other proceedings by or against the transferor pending on the appointed date are to be continued and enforced by or against the transferee as if instituted by or against it. It followed Spice Enfotainment Ltd., Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and Kamala Muthiah, holding that proceedings pursued against a dissolved company are wholly without jurisdiction.On Section 87, the Court held that the provision only ensures that the authorities’ right to recover tax is protected and that the liability continues to be discharged. It does not deal at all with the question whether pending proceedings against a dissolved company may be continued; that question stands already decided by the Supreme Court, and Section 87 is not relevant to it. Participation by the petitioner did not cure the defect. The merits of the demand were expressly left open.Final verdict. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 06.12.2024 was set aside, leaving it open to the respondent authorities to undertake such action as may be permissible under law. | ||||
| 3 | Golden Traders & Others vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Others | 16-02-2026 | Legality of detention/confiscation of goods in transit under Section 129 CGST/SGST Act on ground of undervaluation and entitlement to release. | View Download |
Facts :The petitioners’ goods and vehicles were intercepted and detained under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act on allegations of undervaluation of goods in transit.Orders in Form GST MOV-06 and MOV-10 were issued proposing confiscation and penalty.Petitioners challenged the detention and confiscation proceedings as without jurisdiction and sought release of goods and vehicles.The matters involved multiple writ petitions raising a common issue regarding valuation of goods at the stage of interception.Court Decision:The Court held that at the stage of interception under Section 129, authorities cannot undertake determination of valuation of goods.Issues relating to valuation and tax liability must be examined by the assessing authority and not by officers at check post during transit.Confiscation or penalty merely on the ground of undervaluation of goods in transit is not a valid exercise of power under Section 129/130.The Court also held that one State’s authorities cannot levy penalty or confiscate goods for alleged tax evasion in another State.Accordingly, goods and vehicles seized under the impugned orders were directed to be released.Cases Referred:Alfa Group vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)K.P. Sugandam & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Pattal Andrea and Company vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.Panchi Trades vs State of GujaratShambu Saran Agarwal & Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade 5 | ||||
| Golden Traders & Others vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Others 16-02-2026 Legality of detention/confiscation of goods in transit under Section 129 CGST/SGST Act on ground of undervaluation and entitlement to release.Facts :The petitioners’ goods and vehicles were intercepted and detained under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act on allegations of undervaluation of goods in transit.Orders in Form GST MOV-06 and MOV-10 were issued proposing confiscation and penalty.Petitioners challenged the detention and confiscation proceedings as without jurisdiction and sought release of goods and vehicles.The matters involved multiple writ petitions raising a common issue regarding valuation of goods at the stage of interception.Court Decision:The Court held that at the stage of interception under Section 129, authorities cannot undertake determination of valuation of goods.Issues relating to valuation and tax liability must be examined by the assessing authority and not by officers at check post during transit.Confiscation or penalty merely on the ground of undervaluation of goods in transit is not a valid exercise of power under Section 129/130.The Court also held that one State’s authorities cannot levy penalty or confiscate goods for alleged tax evasion in another State.Accordingly, goods and vehicles seized under the impugned orders were directed to be released.Cases Referred:Alfa Group vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)K.P. Sugandam & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Pattal Andrea and Company vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.Panchi Trades vs State of GujaratShambu Saran Agarwal & Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade 5 | ||||
| 4 | Shilpa Medicare Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh | 31-01-2026 | Transfer of a research and development unit between two units of the same company across two States — held exempt by the Advance Ruling Authority but a taxable supply of goods with no transferable credit by the Appellate Authority. At issue: the reach o | View Download |
Background. The petitioner transferred its research and development unit at Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh to its own unit at Bengaluru, Karnataka, the agreement covering all liabilities including statutory liabilities, all employees on the same terms and continuity of service, books, records, customer contracts, know-how, brands and other intangibles. The Authority for Advance Ruling held, on 24.02.2020, that the transaction was a supply of service covered by Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) and that the unutilised credit of the Vizianagaram unit — IGST Rs. 2,29,24,118, CGST Rs. 50,50,789 and APGST Rs. 35,40,668 — could be transferred to the Bengaluru unit. On the department’s application, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling set that aside on 10.11.2020, holding the transaction to be a taxable supply of goods with no entitlement to transfer the credit to Karnataka.Observations of the Court. On exemption, the Court held that the petitioner would in any event be entitled to the benefit of the exemption by virtue of the notification, while expressly leaving open the larger doubt whether such services could have been brought within the purview of GST at all, given that the Act does not provide for taxing a transfer of business as a going concern as a supply of service.On credit, the Court rejected the Appellate Authority’s construction of “change in the constitution of a registered person” as connoting an internal structural change, such as a proprietary firm becoming a partnership. Such a reading would cut out sale, merger and lease, in each of which the transferor exits the picture and there is no internal change; the phrase must be understood as permitting transfer of credit from the ledger of the transferor to the transferee. The Court further observed that unutilised credit is an asset in the hands of the transferor, and on a sale of the entire business it is only reasonable that this asset also travels, Section 18(3) supplying the statutory basis. It also held that the authorities, having treated the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka units as distinct persons under Sections 25(4) and 25(5) so as to tax the transfer, cannot simultaneously contend that the two units are parts of the same registered person and that there is no transfer. As regards the credit under the Central and Integrated levies it foresaw no difficulty, the administering authority being the Central Government; but the transfer from the APGST Act to the KGST Act would affect two States, and Karnataka was not before the Court.Final verdict. The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the ruling of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling dated 10.11.2020, with the direction that further consideration of the issue by the authorities shall be on the basis of the observations in the order. The question of admissibility of transfer between the APGST Act and the KGST Act was directed to be placed before the authorities under both enactments, the petitioner being at liberty to approach them and agitate its rights. | ||||
| Shilpa Medicare Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh 31-01-2026 Transfer of a research and development unit between two units of the same company across two States — held exempt by the Advance Ruling Authority but a taxable supply of goods with no transferable credit by the Appellate Authority. At issue: the reach oBackground. The petitioner transferred its research and development unit at Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh to its own unit at Bengaluru, Karnataka, the agreement covering all liabilities including statutory liabilities, all employees on the same terms and continuity of service, books, records, customer contracts, know-how, brands and other intangibles. The Authority for Advance Ruling held, on 24.02.2020, that the transaction was a supply of service covered by Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) and that the unutilised credit of the Vizianagaram unit — IGST Rs. 2,29,24,118, CGST Rs. 50,50,789 and APGST Rs. 35,40,668 — could be transferred to the Bengaluru unit. On the department’s application, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling set that aside on 10.11.2020, holding the transaction to be a taxable supply of goods with no entitlement to transfer the credit to Karnataka.Observations of the Court. On exemption, the Court held that the petitioner would in any event be entitled to the benefit of the exemption by virtue of the notification, while expressly leaving open the larger doubt whether such services could have been brought within the purview of GST at all, given that the Act does not provide for taxing a transfer of business as a going concern as a supply of service.On credit, the Court rejected the Appellate Authority’s construction of “change in the constitution of a registered person” as connoting an internal structural change, such as a proprietary firm becoming a partnership. Such a reading would cut out sale, merger and lease, in each of which the transferor exits the picture and there is no internal change; the phrase must be understood as permitting transfer of credit from the ledger of the transferor to the transferee. The Court further observed that unutilised credit is an asset in the hands of the transferor, and on a sale of the entire business it is only reasonable that this asset also travels, Section 18(3) supplying the statutory basis. It also held that the authorities, having treated the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka units as distinct persons under Sections 25(4) and 25(5) so as to tax the transfer, cannot simultaneously contend that the two units are parts of the same registered person and that there is no transfer. As regards the credit under the Central and Integrated levies it foresaw no difficulty, the administering authority being the Central Government; but the transfer from the APGST Act to the KGST Act would affect two States, and Karnataka was not before the Court.Final verdict. The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the ruling of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling dated 10.11.2020, with the direction that further consideration of the issue by the authorities shall be on the basis of the observations in the order. The question of admissibility of transfer between the APGST Act and the KGST Act was directed to be placed before the authorities under both enactments, the petitioner being at liberty to approach them and agitate its rights. | ||||
| 5 | A.R. Steels vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner STL & Others | 31-01-2026 | Whether a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order is maintainable when filed with inordinate and unexplained delay, on the ground that the petitioner could not access the GST portal due to cancellation of registration. | View Download |
BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, a trader in iron and iron scrap, had its GST registration cancelled suo motu with effect from 01.06.2023. The petitioner challenged the cancellation before the High Court in an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 19.06.2024 directing the petitioner to either apply for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the GST Act or challenge the cancellation order by way of appeal — within 15 days. Pursuant to that direction, the petitioner filed an application for revocation, which remained pending. Meanwhile, the jurisdictional officer conducted inspection followed by an audit covering the period December 2021 to June 2023, issued a pre-show cause notice and a show cause notice, and thereafter passed an assessment order on 11.11.2024 disallowing Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner and raising a demand. The assessment order was uploaded on the GST portal. Recovery proceedings were initiated on 31.01.2025, upon which the petitioner claims to have first come to know of the assessment order and thereafter filed the present writ petition on 05.01.2026 — approximately 14 months after the assessment order. CRUCIAL FACTSNotices in Form DRC-01A dated 30.08.2024 and Form DRC-01 dated 20.09.2024 were served on the petitioner both through the GST portal and through registered post dated 25.09.2024, which was returned with an endorsement "no such person available." No response was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice. The assessment order was passed on 11.11.2024 and uploaded on the portal. The petitioner approached the High Court only on 05.01.2026, offering the sole explanation that it could not access the portal as its registration had been cancelled. The Court noted that since the assessment order related to the period December 2021 to June 2023 — a period prior to cancellation — there was no restriction on the petitioner from accessing the portal with respect to that period. No other explanation was offered for the delay of over 14 months in filing the writ petition.COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim — Crucial)On Portal Service being valid service:(Reproduced from the Court's own earlier order in W.P. No. 16500 of 2025 and batch, which was followed in this case):"The contention that the registered persons/dealers were unaware of the service of the impugned orders in the portal cannot be accepted as a ground for condoning delay. Acceptance of such a plea would throw open the doors for filing of Writ Petitions against the orders which have been passed years back. In fact most of the Writ petitions in the present batch are cases where orders had been passed in the year 2023 itself. Further, the prescribed method of service of notices and orders includes service of the order through the portal being maintained by the GST Authorities. Once such a method of service has been included in the Act and Rules, the contention that such service is not sufficient service and did not give actual notice of service to the registered persons cannot be accepted."On Petitioner's claim of inability to access portal post-cancellation:"Though the registration of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 15.07.2023, still the petitioner can access the portal inasmuch as the assessment order was passed in relation to period from December, 2021 to June, 2023 and therefore, there is no restriction on the petitioner to access the portal. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced."On Unexplained Delay:"Though, the order was passed on 11.11.2024, no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the petitioner for the delay in filing the present writ petition. The only explanation offered by the petitioner is that it could not access the portal as its registration was cancelled.""In the case on hand, as already recorded supra, the petitioner has not offered any explanation for the delay in approaching this Court and therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained at this distance of time." FINAL VERDICTThe writ petition is dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. The petitioner's plea of inability to access the GST portal due to cancellation of registration was rejected. No order as to costs.👎 THUMBS DOWN (Against Assessee) | ||||
| A.R. Steels vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner STL & Others 31-01-2026 Whether a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order is maintainable when filed with inordinate and unexplained delay, on the ground that the petitioner could not access the GST portal due to cancellation of registration.BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, a trader in iron and iron scrap, had its GST registration cancelled suo motu with effect from 01.06.2023. The petitioner challenged the cancellation before the High Court in an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 19.06.2024 directing the petitioner to either apply for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the GST Act or challenge the cancellation order by way of appeal — within 15 days. Pursuant to that direction, the petitioner filed an application for revocation, which remained pending. Meanwhile, the jurisdictional officer conducted inspection followed by an audit covering the period December 2021 to June 2023, issued a pre-show cause notice and a show cause notice, and thereafter passed an assessment order on 11.11.2024 disallowing Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner and raising a demand. The assessment order was uploaded on the GST portal. Recovery proceedings were initiated on 31.01.2025, upon which the petitioner claims to have first come to know of the assessment order and thereafter filed the present writ petition on 05.01.2026 — approximately 14 months after the assessment order. CRUCIAL FACTSNotices in Form DRC-01A dated 30.08.2024 and Form DRC-01 dated 20.09.2024 were served on the petitioner both through the GST portal and through registered post dated 25.09.2024, which was returned with an endorsement "no such person available." No response was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice. The assessment order was passed on 11.11.2024 and uploaded on the portal. The petitioner approached the High Court only on 05.01.2026, offering the sole explanation that it could not access the portal as its registration had been cancelled. The Court noted that since the assessment order related to the period December 2021 to June 2023 — a period prior to cancellation — there was no restriction on the petitioner from accessing the portal with respect to that period. No other explanation was offered for the delay of over 14 months in filing the writ petition.COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim — Crucial)On Portal Service being valid service:(Reproduced from the Court's own earlier order in W.P. No. 16500 of 2025 and batch, which was followed in this case):"The contention that the registered persons/dealers were unaware of the service of the impugned orders in the portal cannot be accepted as a ground for condoning delay. Acceptance of such a plea would throw open the doors for filing of Writ Petitions against the orders which have been passed years back. In fact most of the Writ petitions in the present batch are cases where orders had been passed in the year 2023 itself. Further, the prescribed method of service of notices and orders includes service of the order through the portal being maintained by the GST Authorities. Once such a method of service has been included in the Act and Rules, the contention that such service is not sufficient service and did not give actual notice of service to the registered persons cannot be accepted."On Petitioner's claim of inability to access portal post-cancellation:"Though the registration of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 15.07.2023, still the petitioner can access the portal inasmuch as the assessment order was passed in relation to period from December, 2021 to June, 2023 and therefore, there is no restriction on the petitioner to access the portal. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced."On Unexplained Delay:"Though, the order was passed on 11.11.2024, no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the petitioner for the delay in filing the present writ petition. The only explanation offered by the petitioner is that it could not access the portal as its registration was cancelled.""In the case on hand, as already recorded supra, the petitioner has not offered any explanation for the delay in approaching this Court and therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained at this distance of time." FINAL VERDICTThe writ petition is dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. The petitioner's plea of inability to access the GST portal due to cancellation of registration was rejected. No order as to costs.👎 THUMBS DOWN (Against Assessee) | ||||
| 6 | Uber India Systems Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. | 28-01-2026 | Validity of common Show Cause Notice for multiple tax periods – Proceedings under the CGST Act relating to issuance of Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years. | View Download |
Facts:The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 proposing levy of tax and penalty for the tax periods 2018-19 to 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the notice before the High Court contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued covering multiple assessment periods or financial years.Court Decision:The High Court held that assessment proceedings for each taxation period or financial year must be initiated through separate show cause notices. Since the impugned notice covered multiple taxation periods in a single show cause notice, the Court set aside the notice following the earlier judgment of the same Court. The writ petition was allowed with liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:• S.J Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors. | ||||
| Uber India Systems Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. 28-01-2026 Validity of common Show Cause Notice for multiple tax periods – Proceedings under the CGST Act relating to issuance of Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years.Facts:The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 proposing levy of tax and penalty for the tax periods 2018-19 to 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the notice before the High Court contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued covering multiple assessment periods or financial years.Court Decision:The High Court held that assessment proceedings for each taxation period or financial year must be initiated through separate show cause notices. Since the impugned notice covered multiple taxation periods in a single show cause notice, the Court set aside the notice following the earlier judgment of the same Court. The writ petition was allowed with liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:• S.J Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors. | ||||
| 7 | Wingtech Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy | 03-09-2025 | Legality of recovery and attachment proceedings before expiry of appeal period and scope of deemed stay under Section 107(6) GST | View Download |
Facts :The petitioner was subjected to an assessment order dated 02.08.2025 raising a demand of over ₹244 crores. Prior to and immediately after the assessment, the authorities provisionally attached bank accounts and issued recovery notice dated 19.08.2025, resulting in recovery of ₹170 crores. Due to attachment and recovery, the petitioner could not file appeal as it was unable to arrange the statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner challenged the recovery, attachment, and conditions imposed by the Department.Court Decision:The Court held that once the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) is satisfied, a deemed stay of recovery operates and further coercive steps are not permissible. It directed that the amount already recovered be adjusted towards the 10% pre-deposit and the balance be refunded upon furnishing undertaking by the petitioner. The Court further held that restrictions on use of funds can be imposed only to safeguard revenue interests, and directed the petitioner to maintain specified balance and retain sale proceeds till disposal of appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for refund subject to undertakings and adjustment of pre-deposit. | ||||
| Wingtech Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy 03-09-2025 Legality of recovery and attachment proceedings before expiry of appeal period and scope of deemed stay under Section 107(6) GSTFacts :The petitioner was subjected to an assessment order dated 02.08.2025 raising a demand of over ₹244 crores. Prior to and immediately after the assessment, the authorities provisionally attached bank accounts and issued recovery notice dated 19.08.2025, resulting in recovery of ₹170 crores. Due to attachment and recovery, the petitioner could not file appeal as it was unable to arrange the statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner challenged the recovery, attachment, and conditions imposed by the Department.Court Decision:The Court held that once the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) is satisfied, a deemed stay of recovery operates and further coercive steps are not permissible. It directed that the amount already recovered be adjusted towards the 10% pre-deposit and the balance be refunded upon furnishing undertaking by the petitioner. The Court further held that restrictions on use of funds can be imposed only to safeguard revenue interests, and directed the petitioner to maintain specified balance and retain sale proceeds till disposal of appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for refund subject to undertakings and adjustment of pre-deposit. | ||||
| 8 | JR Metal Chennai Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Two Others | 08-05-2024 | An order under Section 85 fastening successor liability on the buyer of plant, machinery, land and building, on a finding that this amounted to a transfer of the seller’s business. At issue: whether that finding was open to writ scrutiny as made without | View Download |
Background. The petitioner had purchased plant and machinery, land and building of M/s Venkatasai Ispat Industries Pvt. Ltd. under a sale deed dated 17.02.2021. An order dated 16.04.2024 of the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Anantapur Division held that this amounted to a transfer of ownership of business within the meaning of Section 85 of the CGST Act, and fastened joint and several liability on the petitioner for the transferor’s dues. The petitioner did not dispute the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal, but contended that the writ was maintainable because the finding of transfer of business was without jurisdiction, since only assets, and not the business, had been purchased.Observations of the Court. The Court set out Section 85(1) of the CGST Act, under which a taxable person who transfers his business, in whole or in part, by sale, gift, lease, leave and licence, hire or in any other manner, and the transferee to whom it is transferred, are jointly and severally liable for the transferor’s tax, interest and penalty up to the time of transfer. It noted that the sub-section uses the expression “transfers his business”.Relying on State of Karnataka v. Shreyas Papers (P) Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 615, on Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. v. Union of India, 2008 SCC Online Bom 137, and on Sri Jayajothi & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6002, the Court accepted the proposition that transfer of the “ownership of business” requires the business to be sold as a going concern, that transfer of one or more assets does not by itself amount to transfer of the ownership of business — a wider concept than ownership of discrete assets — and that liability attaches only where the transferee succeeds to the business as its successor-in-interest.The Court held that there was no dispute on that proposition of law, but that whether there was in fact a transfer of business was a question of fact requiring determination on evidence, and that this was not a ground that could not be taken before the appellate authority; the impugned order’s finding that there was a transfer of business could well be examined by that authority.It further held that it was not convinced the impugned order was without jurisdiction, since the order was not on its face without jurisdiction and it was not the petitioner’s case that the authority inherently lacked jurisdiction to decide the question; in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court did not consider it appropriate at that stage to enter into the disputed question of fact.Final verdict. The writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of the availability of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail that remedy if so advised. No order was made as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, were closed. | ||||
| JR Metal Chennai Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Two Others 08-05-2024 An order under Section 85 fastening successor liability on the buyer of plant, machinery, land and building, on a finding that this amounted to a transfer of the seller’s business. At issue: whether that finding was open to writ scrutiny as made withoutBackground. The petitioner had purchased plant and machinery, land and building of M/s Venkatasai Ispat Industries Pvt. Ltd. under a sale deed dated 17.02.2021. An order dated 16.04.2024 of the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Anantapur Division held that this amounted to a transfer of ownership of business within the meaning of Section 85 of the CGST Act, and fastened joint and several liability on the petitioner for the transferor’s dues. The petitioner did not dispute the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal, but contended that the writ was maintainable because the finding of transfer of business was without jurisdiction, since only assets, and not the business, had been purchased.Observations of the Court. The Court set out Section 85(1) of the CGST Act, under which a taxable person who transfers his business, in whole or in part, by sale, gift, lease, leave and licence, hire or in any other manner, and the transferee to whom it is transferred, are jointly and severally liable for the transferor’s tax, interest and penalty up to the time of transfer. It noted that the sub-section uses the expression “transfers his business”.Relying on State of Karnataka v. Shreyas Papers (P) Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 615, on Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. v. Union of India, 2008 SCC Online Bom 137, and on Sri Jayajothi & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6002, the Court accepted the proposition that transfer of the “ownership of business” requires the business to be sold as a going concern, that transfer of one or more assets does not by itself amount to transfer of the ownership of business — a wider concept than ownership of discrete assets — and that liability attaches only where the transferee succeeds to the business as its successor-in-interest.The Court held that there was no dispute on that proposition of law, but that whether there was in fact a transfer of business was a question of fact requiring determination on evidence, and that this was not a ground that could not be taken before the appellate authority; the impugned order’s finding that there was a transfer of business could well be examined by that authority.It further held that it was not convinced the impugned order was without jurisdiction, since the order was not on its face without jurisdiction and it was not the petitioner’s case that the authority inherently lacked jurisdiction to decide the question; in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court did not consider it appropriate at that stage to enter into the disputed question of fact.Final verdict. The writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of the availability of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail that remedy if so advised. No order was made as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, were closed. | ||||
| 9 | Arhaan Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. | 03-08-2023 | Detention/confiscation of goods under Sections 129 & 130 where proceedings were initiated against an alleged fictitious seller. | View Download |
BackgroundThe petitioners challenged the detention of iron scrap and the vehicles transporting it while the goods were in transit from Vijayawada to Sankarampet, Telangana. The goods were accompanied by invoices, e-way bills and other documents. The Revenue detained the consignment on the ground that the seller shown in the documents did not have a place of business at Vijayawada and subsequently alleged that the seller was a fictitious/non-existing entity. The seller's GST registration was suspended and proceedings under Section 130 were initiated against him.The petitioners contended that they had purchased the goods for valuable consideration after verifying the seller's GST registration on the official portal and that, at the time of interception, the goods were accompanied by valid documents. They argued that if the Revenue had any doubt regarding the transaction or the petitioners' bona fides, proceedings under Section 129 ought to have been initiated against them, rather than applying the Section 130 proceedings against the seller to the petitioners' goods.Court ObservationThe Court examined Section 68 and Rule 138A concerning inspection of goods in movement and the documents required to accompany a consignment. It noted that the officer had the authority to intercept and verify the goods and documents. However, the principal issue was whether the petitioners' goods could be confiscated merely because proceedings had been initiated against the seller under Section 130.Relying upon the distinction between Sections 129 and 130, the Court held that detention proceedings under Section 129 and confiscation proceedings under Section 130 operate in different contexts. The Court observed that although proceedings could be initiated against the seller under Section 130 because of his doubtful existence and business credentials, the petitioners' goods could not be confiscated merely because they had purchased the goods from that seller.The Court further observed that the petitioners' responsibility was to establish their own bona fides—namely, that they had purchased the goods for valuable consideration after verifying the seller's GST registration and that the transaction, payment and receipt of goods were supported by authenticated documents. They could not, however, be expected to establish the seller's business activities or whether the seller had obtained registration through fabricated documents. The Revenue was therefore required to initiate independent proceedings under Section 129 against the petitioners if it intended to proceed against their goods.Final VerdictThe High Court disposed of the writ petitions and granted liberty to the first respondent to initiate proceedings against the petitioners under Section 129 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017 within two weeks from receipt of the order. The petitioners were to be given an opportunity of hearing and the matter was to be decided in accordance with law.In the meantime, the detained goods were directed to be released in favour of the purchaser on deposit of 25% of their value and execution of a personal bond for the balance. The vehicles were also directed to be released upon execution of personal security bonds for their value as determined by the concerned Road Transport Authority. No costs were awarded.Cases Referred by the CourtRajeev Traders v. Union of India — High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench — Order dated 16.08.2022, W.P. No. 100849/2022 (T-RES). The Court relied upon this decision for the distinction between the powers of detention under Section 129 and confiscation under Section 130.Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat — High Court of Gujarat — 2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 513 (Guj.) / MANU/GJ/3200/2019. The Court referred to this decision for the proposition that Sections 129 and 130 are independent and mutually exclusive provisions dealing respectively with detention/seizure/release and confiscation. | ||||
| Arhaan Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 03-08-2023 Detention/confiscation of goods under Sections 129 & 130 where proceedings were initiated against an alleged fictitious seller.BackgroundThe petitioners challenged the detention of iron scrap and the vehicles transporting it while the goods were in transit from Vijayawada to Sankarampet, Telangana. The goods were accompanied by invoices, e-way bills and other documents. The Revenue detained the consignment on the ground that the seller shown in the documents did not have a place of business at Vijayawada and subsequently alleged that the seller was a fictitious/non-existing entity. The seller's GST registration was suspended and proceedings under Section 130 were initiated against him.The petitioners contended that they had purchased the goods for valuable consideration after verifying the seller's GST registration on the official portal and that, at the time of interception, the goods were accompanied by valid documents. They argued that if the Revenue had any doubt regarding the transaction or the petitioners' bona fides, proceedings under Section 129 ought to have been initiated against them, rather than applying the Section 130 proceedings against the seller to the petitioners' goods.Court ObservationThe Court examined Section 68 and Rule 138A concerning inspection of goods in movement and the documents required to accompany a consignment. It noted that the officer had the authority to intercept and verify the goods and documents. However, the principal issue was whether the petitioners' goods could be confiscated merely because proceedings had been initiated against the seller under Section 130.Relying upon the distinction between Sections 129 and 130, the Court held that detention proceedings under Section 129 and confiscation proceedings under Section 130 operate in different contexts. The Court observed that although proceedings could be initiated against the seller under Section 130 because of his doubtful existence and business credentials, the petitioners' goods could not be confiscated merely because they had purchased the goods from that seller.The Court further observed that the petitioners' responsibility was to establish their own bona fides—namely, that they had purchased the goods for valuable consideration after verifying the seller's GST registration and that the transaction, payment and receipt of goods were supported by authenticated documents. They could not, however, be expected to establish the seller's business activities or whether the seller had obtained registration through fabricated documents. The Revenue was therefore required to initiate independent proceedings under Section 129 against the petitioners if it intended to proceed against their goods.Final VerdictThe High Court disposed of the writ petitions and granted liberty to the first respondent to initiate proceedings against the petitioners under Section 129 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017 within two weeks from receipt of the order. The petitioners were to be given an opportunity of hearing and the matter was to be decided in accordance with law.In the meantime, the detained goods were directed to be released in favour of the purchaser on deposit of 25% of their value and execution of a personal bond for the balance. The vehicles were also directed to be released upon execution of personal security bonds for their value as determined by the concerned Road Transport Authority. No costs were awarded.Cases Referred by the CourtRajeev Traders v. Union of India — High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench — Order dated 16.08.2022, W.P. No. 100849/2022 (T-RES). The Court relied upon this decision for the distinction between the powers of detention under Section 129 and confiscation under Section 130.Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat — High Court of Gujarat — 2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 513 (Guj.) / MANU/GJ/3200/2019. The Court referred to this decision for the proposition that Sections 129 and 130 are independent and mutually exclusive provisions dealing respectively with detention/seizure/release and confiscation. | ||||
