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.Cases Referred:None mentioned in the judgment. 

Facts (Background):A search was conducted on 03.08.2021 at the premises of the petitioner, a metal scrap dealer. Investigation by DGGI revealed that the petitioner had allegedly availed fraudulent ITC from several non-existent supplier firms and passed on such ITC through fake invoices. A show cause notice dated 29.05.2023 was issued for the period 2017-18 to 2021-22 proposing recovery of ₹83,76,32,528/- under Section 74 along with interest and penalty, which was confirmed by the adjudication order dated 23.01.2025.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned adjudication order was a detailed order passed after granting multiple opportunities of hearing and after considering the replies filed by the petitioner. The contention that the replies were not considered was rejected.The Court further held that issuance of a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act is permissible as the provisions use the expressions “for any period” and “for such periods”. In cases involving fraudulent availment or utilisation of ITC, transactions across several years may have to be examined together to establish the pattern of fraud.The Court also held that denial of cross-examination in show cause notice proceedings does not automatically vitiate the adjudication, as the right of cross-examination is not an unfettered right and depends on the facts of each case.Since the adjudication order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and involved disputed questions of fact, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy.Cases Referred by Court:·         M/s Vallabh Textile Through Its Authorized Representative v. Additional/Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate & Ors.·         Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner of Customs·         M/s Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement, (2013) 9 SCC 549·         Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj, (2008) 9 SCC 1·         HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1236·         Flevel International v. Central Excise, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12173 

Facts of the CaseThe complainant department filed Complaint No. GST/01/2018 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, alleging commission of offences under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the HPGST/CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 against the petitioners, who were partners of M/s G.M. Powertech.It was alleged that the firm had availed fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) during the financial years 2017–18 and 2018–19 by declaring inward supplies from fictitious and non-existent firms based in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The GST portal verification revealed that goods were purportedly transported in fake or non-existent vehicles, including two-wheelers and cars incapable of carrying heavy consignments. Investigation showed that suppliers mentioned in invoices did not exist at the given addresses. Fraudulent ITC amounting to substantial sums was alleged.The learned Trial Court, upon finding sufficient material, summoned the accused and fixed the matter for recording pre-charge evidence.Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint and subsequent proceedings. They contended that the GST Acts were silent regarding investigation and filing of complaint, that departmental officers exercised unbridled powers, that Sections 69 and 132 were arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the trial court erred in proceeding as a warrant case and ordering pre-charge evidence.The principal questions before the High Court were:Whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to investigation and trial under the GST Acts.Whether the complaint and proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Whether the trial court erred in treating the matter as a warrant case and directing pre-charge evidence.Court Observations and DecisionThe High Court examined the law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings and reiterated the principles governing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as laid down by the Supreme Court. It observed that quashing is permissible only in limited circumstances such as absence of prima facie offence, legal bar to proceedings, or manifest abuse of process.On applicability of Cr.P.C., the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, holding that by virtue of Sections 4(2) and 5 Cr.P.C., the provisions of the Code apply to offences under special statutes unless expressly excluded. It further noted that GST Acts are not a complete code in respect of search, seizure, arrest and procedure, and therefore Cr.P.C. provisions apply in the absence of any contrary provision.The Court rejected the contention that the Act was silent regarding investigation and filing of complaint. It held that Cr.P.C. governs such procedure unless excluded.Regarding the trial as a warrant case, the Court observed that Section 132 provides punishment up to five years’ imprisonment. Since a warrant case under Section 2(x) Cr.P.C. includes offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, the trial court was correct in proceeding as a warrant case. Under Section 244 Cr.P.C., in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence after appearance of the accused. Therefore, ordering pre-charge evidence was legally justified.On the contention that investigation was improperly conducted, the Court held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction, it only examines whether a prima facie case exists and does not evaluate the sufficiency or credibility of evidence. The verification conducted by officials, who found that suppliers did not exist at the given addresses, was sufficient at the prima facie stage. Issues relating to quality of investigation are matters for trial.The Court also held that the decision in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) did not assist the petitioners, as it does not render departmental investigation invalid per se.Finding no ground falling within the parameters for quashing, the High Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the petition and would not affect the merits of the trial.Cases ReferredB.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7, Supreme Court of India.State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Supreme Court of India.Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, Supreme Court of India.Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, (2025) 150 GSTR 121, Supreme Court of India.Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440, Supreme Court of India.A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500, Supreme Court of India.Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 4794, Supreme Court of India.      

Facts / Background:The petitioner association challenged GST liability on services rendered to its members under various welfare schemes. It relied on the doctrine of mutuality, contending that services by an association to its members are not taxable. Amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 inserted Section 7(1)(aa) deeming such transactions as taxable supplies retrospectively from 01.07.2017. The Single Judge upheld the validity of levy but struck down the retrospective operation, leading to cross appeals by both parties. ________________________________________Court Decision:The Division Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 2(17)(e) and 7(1)(aa) of the CGST/KGST Acts, holding that the legislature was competent to treat transactions between an association and its members as taxable supplies. It held that the amendment validly removes the basis of the doctrine of mutuality for GST purposes. However, the Court held that giving retrospective effect to the amendment from 01.07.2017 was not legally sustainable on principles of fairness. Accordingly, retrospective operation of the amendment was set aside, while upholding its prospective applicability. ________________________________________Cases Referred by Court:•    State of West Bengal v. Calcutta Club Ltd. •    Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax •    Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union v. Management of Gymkhana Club •    Cricket Club of India Ltd. v. Bombay Labour Union •    JCTO v. Young Men’s Indian Association •    State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. •    Union of India v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. •    Jayam & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu •    Rai Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar •    Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE •    Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd.  

Facts :The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 31.10.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the GST Act raising tax, interest and penalty demand. It contended that no show cause notice was effectively communicated, as notices were uploaded on the GST portal under the heading “additional notices and orders” instead of “notices and orders”. Due to this, the petitioner remained unaware and could not file any reply. The petitioner relied on portal screenshots to demonstrate improper placement of notices.Court Decision:The Court held that the petitioner had made out a case of improper service of notice. It observed that although Section 169 permits service through the common portal, the manner of uploading must ensure that notices are effectively communicated. Since the respondents failed to establish that notices were properly placed under the correct heading and the petitioner’s claim remained unrebutted, the impugned assessment order and demand were set aside. The matter was remanded with direction to allow the petitioner to file reply and thereafter pass a fresh order after hearing.Cases Referred:Anhad Impex v. Assistant Commissioner, Ward 16Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.M/s Sudarshan Beopar Company Limited v. Union of India