The petitioner challenged retrospective cancellation of GST registration on the sole ground of non-payment of tax for a period exceeding three months. The factual background showed that the show cause notice cited only delay in payment of tax, interest or penalty as the reason for cancellation, without referring to any statutory ground under Section 29 of the CGST Act. The notice also did not specify any date or time for personal hearing.The Court held that failure to pay tax beyond three months is not a ground for cancellation under Section 29 of the CGST Act. Cancellation of registration must strictly conform to statutory conditions and cannot be sustained on grounds not recognised by law. The impugned cancellation order was set aside.
Subhana Fashion vs Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Services Tax 19-09-2024
The petitioner challenged retrospective cancellation of GST registration on the sole ground of non-payment of tax for a period exceeding three months. The factual background showed that the show cause notice cited only delay in payment of tax, interest or penalty as the reason for cancellation, without referring to any statutory ground under Section 29 of the CGST Act. The notice also did not specify any date or time for personal hearing.The Court held that failure to pay tax beyond three months is not a ground for cancellation under Section 29 of the CGST Act. Cancellation of registration must strictly conform to statutory conditions and cannot be sustained on grounds not recognised by law. The impugned cancellation order was set aside.
The petitioners challenged adjudication orders passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act on the ground that the orders were issued beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 73(10). The factual background showed that for the relevant financial years, no notification under Section 168A extending limitation was in force beyond the prescribed cut-off date. Despite this, orders were passed after expiry of the statutory period.The Court held that in the absence of a valid notification extending limitation, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to pass adjudication orders beyond the time prescribed under Section 73(10). The impugned orders were held to be without authority of law and were set aside.
M/s Barkataki Print and Media Services vs Union of India & Ors. 19-09-2024
The petitioners challenged adjudication orders passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act on the ground that the orders were issued beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 73(10). The factual background showed that for the relevant financial years, no notification under Section 168A extending limitation was in force beyond the prescribed cut-off date. Despite this, orders were passed after expiry of the statutory period.The Court held that in the absence of a valid notification extending limitation, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to pass adjudication orders beyond the time prescribed under Section 73(10). The impugned orders were held to be without authority of law and were set aside.
The petitioner assailed an order-in-original passed under Section 73(9) contending that it was issued beyond the period prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST and SGST Acts. The factual background revealed that the order was passed on 04.05.2024, whereas the limitation for the relevant financial year expired on 30.04.2024, with no extension granted under Section 168A.The Court held that since no notification extending limitation was issued, the adjudication order passed beyond the statutory period was without jurisdiction. The impugned order was quashed.
Rinkumoni Bordoloi (Wife of Late Satyajit Bordoloi) vs Union of India & Ors. 19-09-2024
The petitioner assailed an order-in-original passed under Section 73(9) contending that it was issued beyond the period prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST and SGST Acts. The factual background revealed that the order was passed on 04.05.2024, whereas the limitation for the relevant financial year expired on 30.04.2024, with no extension granted under Section 168A.The Court held that since no notification extending limitation was issued, the adjudication order passed beyond the statutory period was without jurisdiction. The impugned order was quashed.
The petitioner challenged blocking of ITC under Rule 86A on the basis of alleged irregularities attributable to suppliers. The factual background showed that the petitioner had complied with summons and furnished documents, yet ITC was blocked without prior adjudication.The Court held that Rule 86A is a drastic power and must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. Blocking of ITC without establishing the petitioner’s involvement and without following due process was held to be arbitrary. The blocked credit was directed to be restored.
M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. 17-09-2024
The petitioner challenged blocking of ITC under Rule 86A on the basis of alleged irregularities attributable to suppliers. The factual background showed that the petitioner had complied with summons and furnished documents, yet ITC was blocked without prior adjudication.The Court held that Rule 86A is a drastic power and must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. Blocking of ITC without establishing the petitioner’s involvement and without following due process was held to be arbitrary. The blocked credit was directed to be restored.
The petitioner challenged rejection of its application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, which was cancelled due to mismatch in door number of the business premises. The factual background showed that the discrepancy arose due to internal bifurcation of the property and was duly explained.The Court held that the authorities ought to have considered the bona fide explanation and supporting documents. Mechanical rejection without proper consideration was held to be unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and directions were issued to restore the registration.
M/s Professional Car Decors vs Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise 12-09-2024
The petitioner challenged rejection of its application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, which was cancelled due to mismatch in door number of the business premises. The factual background showed that the discrepancy arose due to internal bifurcation of the property and was duly explained.The Court held that the authorities ought to have considered the bona fide explanation and supporting documents. Mechanical rejection without proper consideration was held to be unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and directions were issued to restore the registration.
The petitioner challenged confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act and sought release of seized gold, which constituted stock-in-trade. The factual background showed that appellate remedy was unavailable due to non-constitution of the Tribunal.The Court held that continued retention of stock-in-trade serves no purpose. The gold was directed to be released on execution of bond and furnishing security, without adjudicating on merits.
Jerin T.J. vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence) & Ors. 12-09-2024
The petitioner challenged confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act and sought release of seized gold, which constituted stock-in-trade. The factual background showed that appellate remedy was unavailable due to non-constitution of the Tribunal.The Court held that continued retention of stock-in-trade serves no purpose. The gold was directed to be released on execution of bond and furnishing security, without adjudicating on merits.
The petitioners challenged show cause notices proposing GST at 18% on unfried fryums by reclassifying them contrary to advance ruling appellate orders. The factual background showed that GST Council subsequently clarified the rate and regularised past periods.The Court held that advance ruling appellate orders are binding on jurisdictional officers. Demands raised contrary to such binding rulings and subsequent GST Council clarification were held to be without jurisdiction. The impugned notices were quashed.
J.K. Papad Industries & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. 11-09-2024
The petitioners challenged show cause notices proposing GST at 18% on unfried fryums by reclassifying them contrary to advance ruling appellate orders. The factual background showed that GST Council subsequently clarified the rate and regularised past periods.The Court held that advance ruling appellate orders are binding on jurisdictional officers. Demands raised contrary to such binding rulings and subsequent GST Council clarification were held to be without jurisdiction. The impugned notices were quashed.
The petitioner challenged GST demand-cum-adjudication orders for periods prior to approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The factual background showed that the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT and attained finality after dismissal of appeal by the NCLAT.The Court held that once a resolution plan is approved, all prior statutory dues stand extinguished unless specifically preserved. Consequently, GST demands relating to the pre-resolution period were held to be unenforceable and were set aside.
Patanjali Foods Limited vs Assistant Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner, State Tax & Ors. 11-09-2024
The petitioner challenged GST demand-cum-adjudication orders for periods prior to approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The factual background showed that the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT and attained finality after dismissal of appeal by the NCLAT.The Court held that once a resolution plan is approved, all prior statutory dues stand extinguished unless specifically preserved. Consequently, GST demands relating to the pre-resolution period were held to be unenforceable and were set aside.
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered under IPC provisions on the basis of allegations arising from GST investigation, contending that GST Act is a complete code and prosecution must be under Section 132 with prior sanction.The Court held that when alleged offences are squarely covered under the GST Act, prosecution under IPC without invoking GST penal provisions and without sanction under Section 132(6) is impermissible. The FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed.
Deepak Singhal vs Union of India & Ors. 11-09-2024
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered under IPC provisions on the basis of allegations arising from GST investigation, contending that GST Act is a complete code and prosecution must be under Section 132 with prior sanction.The Court held that when alleged offences are squarely covered under the GST Act, prosecution under IPC without invoking GST penal provisions and without sanction under Section 132(6) is impermissible. The FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed.
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 74 which was based on an audit conducted under Section 65 of the CGST Act. The factual background showed that although documents were furnished during audit, no discrepancy notice under Rule 101(4) was issued prior to initiation of proceedings.The Court held that issuance of a show cause notice solely on the basis of an audit report, without following the mandatory statutory procedure, was unsustainable. The audit mechanism cannot substitute adjudication and independent application of mind. The impugned show cause notice was quashed.
Infiniti Retail Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. 10-09-2024
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 74 which was based on an audit conducted under Section 65 of the CGST Act. The factual background showed that although documents were furnished during audit, no discrepancy notice under Rule 101(4) was issued prior to initiation of proceedings.The Court held that issuance of a show cause notice solely on the basis of an audit report, without following the mandatory statutory procedure, was unsustainable. The audit mechanism cannot substitute adjudication and independent application of mind. The impugned show cause notice was quashed.
