Court Decision:The writ petition challenged the recovery notice dated 25.11.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-13 by which the petitioner’s bank account was attached for the tax liability of M/s. Trans Car India Private Limited, where the petitioner was a Director.The company had earlier suffered an adverse Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2023. The writ petition filed against that order was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Instead of filing the appeal, the company filed a writ appeal which was also dismissed. Since no relief was obtained against the Order-in-Original, the department proceeded to attach the petitioner’s bank account for recovery.The Court examined Section 89 of the CGST Act relating to liability of directors of a private company. The Court held that under Section 89(1), directors can be held jointly and severally liable for unpaid tax of the company if the tax cannot be recovered from the company, unless the director proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on his part. The burden of proof lies on the director to establish this.The Court held that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to discharge this burden. Therefore, the impugned recovery notice attaching the petitioner’s bank account was quashed and the matter was remitted to the first respondent to pass a fresh order on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner to file a proper reply explaining why recovery should not be made from him. The authority was directed to complete the process within two weeks from receipt of the order. 

Facts The petitioner, a logistics service provider registered under GST, challenged Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4), contending that they impose an impossible burden on recipients to ensure tax payment by suppliers. It was argued that denial of ITC due to supplier default is arbitrary and beyond the control of the recipient. The petitioner sought declaration of the provisions as unconstitutional or alternatively sought reading down to protect bona fide recipients who complied with statutory requirements. Court Decision:The High Court declined to strike down Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4). The Court held that the provisions cannot be declared unconstitutional. However, relying on precedents, the Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely due to default of the selling dealer, unless there is fraud, collusion, or lack of genuineness in the transaction. The matter was considered in light of judicial precedents emphasizing protection of genuine transactions and limiting denial of ITC only in appropriate cases. Cases Referred by Court:•    Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. •    On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India •    Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala •    Gheru Lal Bal Chand v. State of Haryana •    State of Karnataka v. Rajesh Jain •    Onyx Designs v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes  

Facts (Background):The petitioner alleged that GST officers illegally detained him from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 after calling him to the office of a Chartered Accountant in connection with investigation into fraudulent input tax credit by M/s Kabsan Services Pvt. Ltd. He contended that he was taken into custody without summons and that the formal arrest was shown only on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i). The petitioner sought compensation of ₹10,00,000 for alleged illegal detention.Court Decision:The Court held that the petitioner had been issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act for inquiry and recording of statement. The petitioner acknowledged the summons and appeared before the authorities from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 without raising any objection. The Court further held that Section 70 of the CGST Act does not require issuance of seven days’ prior notice before appearance for inquiry and that attendance pursuant to summons for investigation cannot be treated as detention.The Court observed that the petitioner was formally arrested on 21.06.2025 after ascertainment of his involvement and was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. Since the petitioner had voluntarily attended the inquiry and no illegal detention was established, the claim for compensation was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.Cases Referred by Court:•    Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.•    D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal•    Dikshant vs. State of Maharashtra•    FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India•    Ram Kotumal Issrani vs. Directorate of Enforcement•    Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India 

Facts (Background):The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 28.10.2022 after issuance of a show cause notice dated 12.10.2022 alleging that the registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice explaining the circumstances, including that the business had already been discontinued. Despite this, the authority cancelled the registration without addressing the reply or providing proper reasons.Court Decision:The High Court observed that the show cause notice was a cyclostyled notice without specific allegations and that there were serious discrepancies between the allegations in the show cause notice and the reasons recorded in the cancellation order. The authority had not considered the petitioner’s reply or provided any particulars of defects or objections.The Court held that the authority acted in a casual and mechanical manner without properly exercising jurisdiction under the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 cancelling the GST registration was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner’s GST registration was restored.Cases Referred by Court:None.

Facts (Background):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.