BACKGROUNDThe petitioner is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of U.P., specializing in indirect taxes, direct taxes and corporate laws. His client, a proprietor of a trading firm, was subjected to substantial GST assessments under Section 74 of the SGST Act for financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24 by the Deputy Commissioner, GST, Sector-1, Rampur. The petitioner filed two online statutory appeals on behalf of his client on 15.08.2025 before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST Act. The pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax was made from the client's Electronic Credit Ledger by utilizing Input Tax Credit, relying upon CBIC Circular dated 06.07.2022 and the Gujarat High Court's Division Bench decision in M/s Yasho Industries Ltd., which had also been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals holding that payment of pre-deposit from the Electronic Credit Ledger by utilizing ITC was not an acceptable valid tender. FACTSInstead of proceeding to recover the assessed tax, interest and penalty from the client through lawful means, the Deputy Commissioner of GST lodged an FIR on 04.10.2025 naming not only the client but also the petitioner-Advocate for the professional act of filing the appeal and making pre-deposit from the Electronic Credit Ledger, alleging GST evasion in conspiracy between the Advocate and his client. The Advocate's act of making pre-deposit was the very act forming the basis of the criminal conspiracy charge. The GST Officer, when summoned in-person and confronted by the Court on the question of why he nominated the Advocate in the FIR for his professional act, had no answer to offer. After notice was issued by the High Court in the writ petition, the police, in a swift and suspicious manner, filed the charge-sheet and the Magistrate passed a cognizance order — all on the same day, i.e., 14.05.2026. This compelled the petitioner to amend the writ petition to also challenge the charge-sheet and the cognizance order. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"what we find is that the impugned F.I.R., lodged in this case, which has led to the police report and the order of cognizance violate all known principles of criminal liability. An Advocate, by his profession, is authorized to represent his client, who may have a case of any kind to be suited in a Court or defended. An Advocate, by his profession, is authorized to defend men charged with murders, rape, terror offences and it is his/her duty to defend them. If, for doing a professional act, like preferring an appeal, an Advocate is to be held in conspiracy with his client, it would be the end of the very existence of the Bar and the right of an Advocate to practice under the Advocates Act. It would, indirectly also, deprive the citizens of their right to the much valued right to legal assistance, because a person, who practices the profession of law before defending his client, would be thinking about his own defence and, this he would be thinking about, before he files a vakalatnama and takes steps on behalf of his client. This kind of a situation, which hits as the roots of the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, cannot be permitted to happen. An Advocate has to work fearlessly and discharge his professional duties, just as an officer of the State is entitled to discharge his duties.""Here, even if the Deputy Commissioner of the GST thinks that pre-deposit of the disputed tax could not be debited to the Electronic Ledger out of the Input Tax Credit, the professional decision of the learned Advocate, to do so, does not, in any way, make him a conspirator with the assessee. It is purely a professional act and not at all something to do with his client's business. It was done in the course of filing an appeal and nothing more. It was based on a particular view of the law, whether right, wrong or utterly wrong." FINAL VERDICTThe Writ Petition was allowed. The FIR dated 04.10.2025,  the cognizance order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur were all quashed insofar as they related to the petitioner-Advocate. The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur to make an entry in red ink in the General Diary of the concerned Police Station recording the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner. CASES REFERRED BY THE COURT#Case NameCitation1Yasho Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India and anotherGujarat High Court — Division Bench (Exact citation not specified in judgment)2Union of India and another vs. Yasho Industries Ltd.2025 SCC OnLine SC 1526 (Supreme Court) 

BackgroundThe petitioners challenged an order passed by the SGST authority. Pursuant to an earlier order dated 24.02.2026, the department filed an affidavit dated 02.03.2026 setting out the relevant details and seeking to explain the issue of non-cross-examination of witnesses. Two procedural grievances were at the core of the matter: the non-supply of relied-upon documents along with the show cause notice, and the refusal to permit cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the department.FactsOn instructions from the Assistant Commissioner (SGST) present in Court, it was submitted that the explanation in the department's affidavit relating to non-cross-examination of the witnesses did not appear to be in consonance with the settled position of law, and that an appropriate opportunity was required to be extended to the petitioners to cross-examine the relevant witnesses as demanded. As regards the documents mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply, it was conceded that the same were supplied during the course of inquiry and not along with the show cause notice. The Court thus had before it two short grounds: subsequent (rather than contemporaneous) supply of the relied-upon documents, and refusal of cross-examination.Court Observations (Verbatim)Para 3: "Under the circumstances, since we find that the documents on which reliance has been placed during the investigation / inquiry were supplied to the petitioners subsequently and not along with the show cause notice, the same would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. The second aspect pertains to the refusal to extend the opportunity of cross-examination, as demanded by the petitioners, of those witnesses whose statements have been relied upon by the department. Such inaction also violates the fundamental principle of fair opportunity of hearing."Para 4: "Thus, only on these two short grounds, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent authority for a fresh inquiry / investigation from the stage of issuance of the show cause notice."Para 5: "We direct that all the documents on which reliance is placed by the respondents shall be supplied to the petitioner along with the list of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs). In the event, the petitioner requests cross-examination of any witnesses whose statements are relied upon by the department, such opportunity shall be extended and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. The inquiry shall be completed within a period of three months."Para 7: "It is clarified that we are not setting aside the show cause notice and the inquiry shall proceed thereafter, after the RUDs are supplied to the petitioners."VerdictThe impugned order was quashed and set aside on the two grounds of non-supply of relied-upon documents with the show cause notice and refusal of cross-examination, both being violations of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh inquiry from the stage of the show cause notice, with a direction to supply all RUDs and extend cross-examination if requested; the show cause notice itself was not set aside, and the inquiry is to be completed within three months.

Facts:Search and investigation proceedings were conducted by different GST authorities against the petitioners relating to alleged tax evasion in the manufacture and sale of scented tobacco and pan masala products. Subsequently, composite show cause notices dated 30.09.2025 and 04.10.2025 were issued under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Acts covering multiple financial years and involving more than one noticee. The petitioners challenged the notices contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued for multiple financial years or for multiple noticees and that the proceedings were also barred under Section 6(2)(b) due to parallel action by different authorities.Court Decision:The High Court examined the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, including the definitions of “tax period”, provisions relating to filing of returns, and the adjudication mechanism under Sections 73 and 74. The Court noted that the limitation for adjudication orders under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) is linked to the due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year.Considering the divergent views expressed by different High Courts on the issue of composite show cause notices for multiple financial years, the Court held that the challenge raised in the batch of petitions required detailed examination of statutory provisions and precedents. The matters were therefore considered together, and the Court addressed the legal questions regarding the permissibility of composite show cause notices, applicability of Section 6(2)(b), and jurisdiction of different authorities.Cases Referred by Court:State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd.Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of KarnatakaCIT vs. Anjum M.H. GhaswalaMehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of GujaratMaharao Bheem Singh of Kota vs. CITState of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.State of U.P. vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.B. Prabhakar Rao vs. State of Andhra PradeshPramur Homes and Shelters vs. Union of IndiaMathur Polymers vs. Union of IndiaMilroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union of IndiaTitan Company Ltd. vs. Joint CommissionerR.A. & Co. vs. Additional Commissioner of Central TaxesTharayil Medicals vs. Deputy CommissionerState of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Caltex (India) Ltd.G.K. Trading Company vs. Union of IndiaArmour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGSTSangeeta Singh vs. Union of IndiaPalm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Magar Girme and Gaikwad AssociatesGrasim Industries Ltd. vs. Collector of CustomsR.K. Ispat Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaX.L. Interiors vs. Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence)Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaDelhi Foils vs. Additional CommissionerRiocare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST

Facts:The petitioner challenged an appellate order dismissing its appeal as time-barred against an ex-parte adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Act. Before filing appeal, the petitioner had filed a rectification application under Section 161, which was rejected. Thereafter, the appeal was filed under Section 107 within one month of rejection of the rectification application. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as beyond limitation, refusing to exclude time spent in rectification proceedings. Court Decision:The Court held that although Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply in strict terms, its underlying principle applies to GST proceedings. It held that time spent bona fide in pursuing rectification under Section 161 must be excluded while computing limitation for appeal under Section 107. The Court clarified that such exclusion does not amount to condonation of delay but exclusion of time, and limitation continues to remain within statutory period. Accordingly, the appeal was held to be within limitation, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits. Cases Referred by Court:•    M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise •    Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. •    Assistant Commissioner (CT) v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. •    Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Parson Tools and Plants •    Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Irrigation Department •    Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. •    India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh •    M/s SPK and Co. v. State Tax Officer •    M/s Arvind Fashion Ltd. v. State of Haryana •    Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India  

BackgroundThe petitioner,  Pilcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., had its ITC amounting to Rs. 13,96,220/- blocked in its Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) by Respondent No. 2 (State Tax Authority) vide e-mail communication dated 24.07.2025.The sole reason recorded in the ECL for blocking was "Supplier found non-functioning", with a reference to attachment bearing ECL No. 20250709584828, which turned out to be an Alert Notice dated 13.06.2025 received by the Commissioner of State GST from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Raipur Zonal Unit.The DGGI communication stated that  Maa Kamakhaya Trading, Surguja  was found non-operational and had allegedly passed on fraudulent ITC without supply of goods through bogus invoices to various taxpayers, including those in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner was one such recipient listed in Annexure-A of that communication.The petitioner contended that no 'reasons to believe' were recorded in writing by Respondent No. 2 as mandatorily required under Rule 86A(1) of the U.P. GST Rules, 2017, rendering the blocking action illegal and without jurisdiction. Court Observations (Verbatim)"Once the Rule requires 'reasons to believe' to be 'recorded in writing', the jurisdiction and authority to be exercised under Rule 86A of the Rules must subscribe to that mandatory condition. Though such reasons may be recorded ex-parte against the assessee, at the same time, the requirement of the statute to record the reasons is a non-negotiable condition. It is wholly mandatory.""Reliance placed by learned Standing Counsel on the 'Reason' as mentioned in the Electronic Credit Ledger, namely, 'Supplier found non-functioning', does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 86A(1) of the Rules, to the extent it does not reflect any application of mind to reach that conclusion.""That the goods claimed to have been supplied to the petitioner by the said supplier  Maa Kamakhaya Trading, Sarguja was a bogus transaction, may not be readily inferred, merely on the generic allegation made by DGGI, Raipur Zonal Unit that that dealer had made some non-generic transactions.""When the Rules require recording of 'reasons to believe', 'in writing', there must not only exist material that may give rise to the belief necessary to be recorded by respondent no.2 but the reasons must spring from material on record/leading to the necessary belief. It necessarily involves application of mind by the competent authority, here respondent no.2, to the facts brought before it.""Even though exercise of power under Rule 86A(1) of the Rules remained ex-parte to the assessee, yet, more especially for that reason, the requirement of the statute to first record 'reasons to believe', 'in writing' must be strictly enforced on the revenue authorities.""It may not be forgotten, granting ITC and maintaining its chain is the soul of a successful GST regime. Therefore, any doubt or suspicion alone may not lead an action by the authorities to block the ITC of the assessee and disrupt the entire value addition chain and consequentially tax payments without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of law — to record 'reasons to believe', 'in writing'." Final VerdictThe blocking of ITC vide e-mail dated 24.07.2025 was set aside. The Court directed that the blocked ITC be unblocked forthwith. Liberty granted to Respondent No. 2 to take fresh action strictly in accordance with law under Rule 86A(1), if warranted. Petition allowed. No order as to costs.