The petitioner challenged provisional attachment of its bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The factual background revealed that the attachment continued beyond one year from the date of the order.The Court held that Section 83(2) clearly mandates that provisional attachment shall cease after expiry of one year. Any continuation beyond the statutory period is illegal. The provisional attachment was quashed.
M/s Tirupati Steel vs Union of India & Ors. 25-08-2025
The petitioner challenged provisional attachment of its bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The factual background revealed that the attachment continued beyond one year from the date of the order.The Court held that Section 83(2) clearly mandates that provisional attachment shall cease after expiry of one year. Any continuation beyond the statutory period is illegal. The provisional attachment was quashed.
The petitioner challenged dismissal of a GST appeal on the ground of limitation and sought adjudication on merits through writ jurisdiction. The factual background showed that the statutory appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of 120 days prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act.The Court held that once the statutory limitation and condonable period expire, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory limitation. The petition was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged dismissal of a GST appeal on the ground of limitation and sought adjudication on merits through writ jurisdiction. The factual background showed that the statutory appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of 120 days prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act.The Court held that once the statutory limitation and condonable period expire, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory limitation. The petition was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order imposing tax and penalty on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The factual matrix revealed that the show cause notice was issued invoking extended limitation, and though the order was signed within time, it was uploaded on the GST portal after expiry of the statutory period.The Court held that for the purposes of limitation, the date on which the order is uploaded and communicated to the assessee is relevant. Mere signing of the order within limitation does not save it if it is not issued or uploaded within the prescribed period. Since the order was uploaded beyond limitation, it was held to be time-barred and set aside.
Rishi Enterprises vs Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi North & Anr. 20-08-2025
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order imposing tax and penalty on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The factual matrix revealed that the show cause notice was issued invoking extended limitation, and though the order was signed within time, it was uploaded on the GST portal after expiry of the statutory period.The Court held that for the purposes of limitation, the date on which the order is uploaded and communicated to the assessee is relevant. Mere signing of the order within limitation does not save it if it is not issued or uploaded within the prescribed period. Since the order was uploaded beyond limitation, it was held to be time-barred and set aside.
The petitioner sought refund of the pre-deposit made for filing appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/JGST Act. The refund application was rejected automatically on the ground of limitation under Section 54. The petitioner contended that once the appeal was allowed, retention of pre-deposit was without authority of law and hit by Article 265 of the Constitution.The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and stood covered by an earlier Division Bench decision holding that Section 54 limitation is not mandatory for refund of pre-deposit. Automatic rejection of refund on limitation was held to be unsustainable. The deficiency memos and rejection of refund were set aside with directions to process the refund along with statutory interest.
GTL Infrastructure Limited vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. 20-08-2025
The petitioner sought refund of the pre-deposit made for filing appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/JGST Act. The refund application was rejected automatically on the ground of limitation under Section 54. The petitioner contended that once the appeal was allowed, retention of pre-deposit was without authority of law and hit by Article 265 of the Constitution.The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and stood covered by an earlier Division Bench decision holding that Section 54 limitation is not mandatory for refund of pre-deposit. Automatic rejection of refund on limitation was held to be unsustainable. The deficiency memos and rejection of refund were set aside with directions to process the refund along with statutory interest.
The petitioner challenged execution court orders directing payment of GST on interest awarded under arbitral awards. The factual background showed that during pendency of the petitions, an advance ruling was obtained clarifying taxability of interest and costs awarded in arbitration.The Court held that once the Authority for Advance Ruling concluded that interest and costs awarded under arbitration are not exigible to GST, continuation of execution orders directing GST payment was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside.
Goa Shipyard Limited vs Shoft Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. 06-08-2025
The petitioner challenged execution court orders directing payment of GST on interest awarded under arbitral awards. The factual background showed that during pendency of the petitions, an advance ruling was obtained clarifying taxability of interest and costs awarded in arbitration.The Court held that once the Authority for Advance Ruling concluded that interest and costs awarded under arbitration are not exigible to GST, continuation of execution orders directing GST payment was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside.
The petitioner sought payment of interest on delayed refund already sanctioned by the authorities. The factual background showed that though the refund was sanctioned in February 2020, the amount was released only in November 2024. The State authorities sought to shift liability to Central authorities.The Court held that the assessee cannot be made to suffer due to inter-departmental disputes between State and Central authorities. Since refund was delayed beyond sixty days, interest under Section 56 was held payable. Directions were issued for payment of interest in accordance with law.
M/s Tata Aldesa (J.V.) vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 24-07-2025
The petitioner sought payment of interest on delayed refund already sanctioned by the authorities. The factual background showed that though the refund was sanctioned in February 2020, the amount was released only in November 2024. The State authorities sought to shift liability to Central authorities.The Court held that the assessee cannot be made to suffer due to inter-departmental disputes between State and Central authorities. Since refund was delayed beyond sixty days, interest under Section 56 was held payable. Directions were issued for payment of interest in accordance with law.
The petitioners challenged rejection of refund of accumulated compensation cess paid on coal used for manufacturing goods exported on payment of IGST. The factual background showed reliance by authorities on circulars restricting refund of cess.The Court held that provisions of the Compensation to States Act permit availment and refund of cess credit on zero-rated supplies. Circulars contrary to statutory provisions were held to be unsustainable. The refund rejection orders were quashed.
Atul Limited & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. 24-07-2025
The petitioners challenged rejection of refund of accumulated compensation cess paid on coal used for manufacturing goods exported on payment of IGST. The factual background showed reliance by authorities on circulars restricting refund of cess.The Court held that provisions of the Compensation to States Act permit availment and refund of cess credit on zero-rated supplies. Circulars contrary to statutory provisions were held to be unsustainable. The refund rejection orders were quashed.
The petitioner sought refund of the entire pre-deposit made during VAT appellate proceedings, part of which was paid in cash and part by utilisation of ITC. Although the appellate proceedings culminated in favour of the petitioner, the department refunded only the cash component and withheld the portion paid through ITC.The Court held that once the appeal is finally decided in favour of the assessee, the entire pre-deposit is liable to be refunded in cash in terms of the transitional provisions. Retention of the amount paid through ITC was held to be without authority of law. Directions were issued to refund the balance amount with applicable interest.
Flipkart India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. 16-07-2025
The petitioner sought refund of the entire pre-deposit made during VAT appellate proceedings, part of which was paid in cash and part by utilisation of ITC. Although the appellate proceedings culminated in favour of the petitioner, the department refunded only the cash component and withheld the portion paid through ITC.The Court held that once the appeal is finally decided in favour of the assessee, the entire pre-deposit is liable to be refunded in cash in terms of the transitional provisions. Retention of the amount paid through ITC was held to be without authority of law. Directions were issued to refund the balance amount with applicable interest.
The petitioner challenged appellate orders upholding proceedings initiated under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the GST Act pursuant to a survey conducted at its business premises. The factual background showed that the alleged discrepancy related to excess stock, without determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. The petitioner contended that confiscation proceedings were wrongly invoked despite the statute prescribing assessment proceedings for such situations.The Court held that where discrepancies relate to unaccounted stock, the proper course is initiation of proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 and not confiscation under Section 130. It was held that authorities acted in disregard of settled law, despite binding precedents of the High Court affirmed by the Supreme Court. The appellate order was stayed and personal affidavits were directed to be filed by the concerned officers.
M/s Rajdhani Udyog vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 07-07-2025
The petitioner challenged appellate orders upholding proceedings initiated under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the GST Act pursuant to a survey conducted at its business premises. The factual background showed that the alleged discrepancy related to excess stock, without determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. The petitioner contended that confiscation proceedings were wrongly invoked despite the statute prescribing assessment proceedings for such situations.The Court held that where discrepancies relate to unaccounted stock, the proper course is initiation of proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 and not confiscation under Section 130. It was held that authorities acted in disregard of settled law, despite binding precedents of the High Court affirmed by the Supreme Court. The appellate order was stayed and personal affidavits were directed to be filed by the concerned officers.
The petitioner challenged adjudication and appellate orders passed pursuant to scrutiny proceedings for FY 2018-19. The factual background showed that the petitioner had submitted multiple replies and documents to the show cause notice issued in Form DRC-01. However, the authorities proceeded to pass adverse orders without granting an effective opportunity of hearing and without properly considering the material placed on record.The Court held that failure to afford an effective opportunity of hearing and non-consideration of replies amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass fresh orders after granting due opportunity to the petitioner.
Benayah Solutions vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. 04-07-2025
The petitioner challenged adjudication and appellate orders passed pursuant to scrutiny proceedings for FY 2018-19. The factual background showed that the petitioner had submitted multiple replies and documents to the show cause notice issued in Form DRC-01. However, the authorities proceeded to pass adverse orders without granting an effective opportunity of hearing and without properly considering the material placed on record.The Court held that failure to afford an effective opportunity of hearing and non-consideration of replies amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass fresh orders after granting due opportunity to the petitioner.
