Facts:The petitioner, a manufacturer, transitioned input tax credit into GST regime by filing TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. An audit was conducted, followed by a show cause notice demanding recovery of transitional credit with interest and penalty. Verification of records was carried out by departmental officers, but the verification reports were not furnished to the petitioner. Despite request and objections, the adjudicating authority passed an order confirming demand without granting opportunity to respond to such reports. Court Decision:The Court held that non-furnishing of verification reports, which formed the basis of the impugned order, amounted to breach of principles of natural justice. It observed that conclusions were drawn without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the verification findings. The Court also noted that the order was passed in haste without complete verification of records. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5 February 2025 was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with directions to furnish verification reports and grant a proper hearing.  

Facts :The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 16.11.2024 and order dated 13.01.2025 passed under the GST Act. The proceedings were initiated after cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration pursuant to application dated 29.04.2023. The petitioner contended that notices were not properly served as they were only uploaded on the GST portal. Reliance was placed on judgments holding that portal service alone is insufficient when registration stands cancelled.Court Decision:The Court held that where GST registration is cancelled, the assessee is not expected to monitor the portal, and service only through the portal does not constitute valid service under Section 169. It found that there was failure to ensure effective service and also emphasized the requirement of personal hearing under Section 75(4). The impugned order was quashed with liberty to the Department to issue fresh notice and adjudicate the matter after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred:M/s Ahs Steels v. Commissioner of State TaxesM/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P.Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal PradeshM/s Jaipal Singh v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun

Facts The petition challenged a show cause notice demanding GST of ₹59,40,000 plus interest on transfer of leasehold rights in MIDC land. The petitioner had assigned leasehold rights for ₹3.30 crore with MIDC’s consent and paid additional premium. Authorities treated the transaction as “supply of services” under Section 7 read with Schedule II and classified it as taxable miscellaneous services.  Court DecisionThe Court held that assignment of leasehold rights amounts to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and not a supply of services. It found that the transaction was neither lease nor sub-lease and the petitioner’s rights stood extinguished upon assignment. The activity lacked the essential element of being in the course or furtherance of business required under Section 7 of the CGST Act. Classification under “other miscellaneous services” was rejected as inapplicable. Accordingly, the show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed and set aside.  Cases Referred•    Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India, (2025) 170   

Case Facts:The petitioner challenged Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2025 confirming GST demand along with interest and penalty.Statutory remedy of appeal before GST Appellate Tribunal was available, but the Tribunal was not fully functional.Petitioner had already deposited ₹23.85 lakhs at the first appellate stage against an original demand of about ₹2.38 crores, later reduced to about ₹40 lakhs.The dispute centered on whether further pre-deposit was required for filing appeal before the Tribunal.Court Decision:Court held that no further pre-deposit is required for filing appeal before GSTAT considering earlier deposit of ₹23.85 lakhs.Petitioner permitted to file appeal within four weeks from the date of order.Tribunal directed to decide appeal on merits without considering limitation if filed within the stipulated time.If electronic filing is not possible, petitioner allowed to file appeal physically and same must be accepted without additional pre-deposit.All issues on merits left open for adjudication by the Tribunal.Writ petition disposed of without costs.

BACKGROUNDNineteen writ petitions were filed by multiple petitioners — all engaged in the medical equipment supply business in Coimbatore — challenging assessment orders passed in Form GST DRC-07 under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments for tax periods ranging from 2020-2021 to 2024-2025. The Revenue, after investigation and inspection, found that the petitioners were part of an organised circular trading ring, wherein they billed each other without any actual movement of goods. The sole purpose was not to pass fake ITC to the end user but to artificially inflate their business turnover to create a creditworthy image before banks and obtain bank loans. The assessment orders recorded that 96% to 100% of the total purchase and sales turnover of the petitioners constituted circular trading transactions, with only 1% or less being genuine original transactions. CRUCIAL FACTSThe assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07 confirmed demands levying penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) — for issuing invoices without supply of goods — and Section 122(1)(vii) — for availing Input Tax Credit without actual receipt of goods. The total penalty imposed across all 19 petitions aggregated to approximately Rs.12.34 crores under Section 122(1)(vii) and Rs.13.67 crores under Section 122(1)(ii). The petitioners' primary legal argument before the High Court was that the maximum penalty imposable under Section 122(1) is Rs.10,000/- and the assessing officers had no authority to impose penalty equivalent to the ITC wrongly availed, as the doctrine of proportionality required the penalty to be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. They relied upon Supreme Court judgments in labour law and service law matters on the doctrine of proportionality. The Revenue countered that Section 122(1) uses the expression "whichever is higher" — Rs.10,000/- or the amount of tax evaded/ITC irregularly availed — leaving no discretion whatsoever to levy a lower amount. The Respondents further relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Dharamendra Textile Processors on the mandatory nature of statutory penalties.  COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim — Crucial)On Circular Trading and the Petitioners' conduct:"The above table shows that the above tax payers are involved in circular trading and has 1% or less original transactions that too were done to portray themselves as genuine tax payers but that is not the case. The above tax payers just to boost up their turnover has billed themselves without any goods movement and their aim is not transfer fake ITC but to boost up their business turnover to get bank loans, to create an image that they are big players in this medical equipment supply business."On Section 122(1) — No discretion to levy Rs.10,000/- as minimum:"The language in Section 122(1) of the respective GST Enactments also does not give any discretion to the Assessing Officer to levy lesser of the amount i.e., Rs.10,000/- as the expression used is 'whichever is higher'.""The above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be applied to the facts of the case specifically in the light of the language in Section 122(1) of the respective GST Enactments. The expression used in Section 122(1) is 'whichever is higher'."On inapplicability of Dharamendra Textile ratio to GST Section 122:"Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which fell for consideration is the above-mentioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is different from Section 122 of the respective GST Enactments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448, has pointed out that the ratio was confined to Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and no observations with regard to the several other statutory provisions that came up for consideration in that decision."On prima facie liability:"No doubt that the Petitioners have wrongly availed the Input Tax Credit and have apparently passed on the credit to boost up their respective turn overs with a view to take undue advantage of the system, prima facie they are liable to penalty under Section 122(1) of the respective GST Enactments."On availability of statutory remedy and writ jurisdiction:"The provisions of the respective GST Enactments contemplate an appellate remedy before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments and further appeal before GST Tribunal under Section 122 of the respective GST Enactments and thereafter remedy before the High Court. The finer aspects of law at best can be left to be decided by the Division Bench of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 117 of the respective GST Enactments which is in line with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261.""The Petitioner cannot short circuit the statutory mechanism prescribed by citing the decisions and the principle laid under the indirect tax enactments which have been subsumed into the respective GST Enactments."On pre-deposit waiver:"Since pre-deposit of huge penalty as prescribed under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments will cause undue hardship to the respective Petitioners and make the appellate remedy illusory, pre-deposit of 10% of penalty under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments is dispensed with at the time of filing the appeals before the Appellate Authority." FINAL VERDICTAll 19 writ petitions are dismissed. Liberty granted to petitioners to file appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 within 30 days. The mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of penalty under Section 107 is waived in view of the large quantum of penalty, to prevent the appellate remedy from becoming illusory. Appellate Authority directed to decide the appeals preferably within 90 days.👎 THUMBS DOWN (Against Assessees — Writ dismissed; however significant relief granted by way of pre-deposit waiver)