Facts The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered selling dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the selling dealers failed to deposit the tax with the Government. The selling dealers were registered at the time of transactions but later defaulted and their registrations were cancelled. The Delhi High Court held that the purchasing dealers were bona fide and entitled to ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Court Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. It held that where transactions and invoices are genuine and the selling dealer was registered at the time of transaction, ITC cannot be denied to bona fide purchasing dealers. The Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of ITC after due verification. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd.
Commissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi v. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. 09-10-2025
Facts The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered selling dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the selling dealers failed to deposit the tax with the Government. The selling dealers were registered at the time of transactions but later defaulted and their registrations were cancelled. The Delhi High Court held that the purchasing dealers were bona fide and entitled to ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Court Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. It held that where transactions and invoices are genuine and the selling dealer was registered at the time of transaction, ITC cannot be denied to bona fide purchasing dealers. The Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of ITC after due verification. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd.
Facts:The petitioner, a developer engaged in construction projects, challenged the show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sections 74(1) and 74A of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, tax liability is determined with reference to the “tax period”, which is linked to the return filed for that period. Returns are filed either monthly or annually, and when the assessment is based on annual returns, the relevant tax period corresponds to the particular financial year.The Court observed that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe limitation for issuing orders based on the due date for filing the annual return for the respective financial year. Since the limitation operates separately for each financial year, the statute does not permit consolidation of multiple financial years into a single show cause notice.The Court further held that issuance of consolidated show cause notices covering several financial years frustrates the statutory limitation scheme and deprives the assessee of the opportunity to give year-specific explanations. Accordingly, the consolidated show cause notices issued for multiple financial years were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.Cases Referred by Court:· R A and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, W.P. No.17239 of 2025 (Madras High Court)· Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, W.P. No.33164 of 2023 (Madras High Court)· Veremax Technologie Services Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No.15810 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)-22, W.P. No.16500 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, 2025:KER:30805 (Kerala High Court)· State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350· RioCare India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex., (2025) 26 Centax 339 (Bombay High Court)· Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Milroc Good Earth Developers vs Union of India & Ors. 09-10-2025
Facts:The petitioner, a developer engaged in construction projects, challenged the show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sections 74(1) and 74A of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, tax liability is determined with reference to the “tax period”, which is linked to the return filed for that period. Returns are filed either monthly or annually, and when the assessment is based on annual returns, the relevant tax period corresponds to the particular financial year.The Court observed that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe limitation for issuing orders based on the due date for filing the annual return for the respective financial year. Since the limitation operates separately for each financial year, the statute does not permit consolidation of multiple financial years into a single show cause notice.The Court further held that issuance of consolidated show cause notices covering several financial years frustrates the statutory limitation scheme and deprives the assessee of the opportunity to give year-specific explanations. Accordingly, the consolidated show cause notices issued for multiple financial years were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.Cases Referred by Court:· R A and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, W.P. No.17239 of 2025 (Madras High Court)· Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, W.P. No.33164 of 2023 (Madras High Court)· Veremax Technologie Services Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No.15810 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)-22, W.P. No.16500 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, 2025:KER:30805 (Kerala High Court)· State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350· RioCare India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex., (2025) 26 Centax 339 (Bombay High Court)· Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)
BackgroundBy attachment orders dated 23.07.2025, the Commissioner, CGST Noida provisionally attached the petitioner’s accounts with Canara Bank and Indian Overseas Bank, Kotdwar, and all other accounts linked to its PAN. On 28.07.2025 its electronic credit ledger was blocked to the extent of Rs. 1,95,57,339. The petitioner stated that no show cause notice under Section 74 had been issued. The Revenue submitted that a search had been carried out, investigation was ongoing, Section 74 proceedings would be initiated at the earliest, and the petitioner might alienate the money lying in its accounts.Final VerdictRelying on Radha Krishan Industries (SC) and its own decision in R.D. Enterprises, the Court held that Section 83 is to be applied only on a proper opinion based on adequate reasons. Examining the attachment letter, it found that the only reason given was that Section 74 proceedings had been launched, and that there is not a whisper of any specific requirement or ground at the present stage or formation of any reasoned opinion for provisionally attaching the said bank accounts; moreover, no Section 74 proceedings had in fact been initiated. The Court observed that if such a reason were allowed to stand, in all proceedings wherein show cause notice is issued under Section 74, provisional attachment would become valid, and held the order perverse and arbitrary. The attachment notices were quashed with a direction to release the accounts within 48 hours, with liberty to the Revenue to issue a fresh notice under Section 83 in accordance with law. On the credit ledger, the authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s reply, grant a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order within two weeks.
M/s Soraza Recycling Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 22-09-2025
BackgroundBy attachment orders dated 23.07.2025, the Commissioner, CGST Noida provisionally attached the petitioner’s accounts with Canara Bank and Indian Overseas Bank, Kotdwar, and all other accounts linked to its PAN. On 28.07.2025 its electronic credit ledger was blocked to the extent of Rs. 1,95,57,339. The petitioner stated that no show cause notice under Section 74 had been issued. The Revenue submitted that a search had been carried out, investigation was ongoing, Section 74 proceedings would be initiated at the earliest, and the petitioner might alienate the money lying in its accounts.Final VerdictRelying on Radha Krishan Industries (SC) and its own decision in R.D. Enterprises, the Court held that Section 83 is to be applied only on a proper opinion based on adequate reasons. Examining the attachment letter, it found that the only reason given was that Section 74 proceedings had been launched, and that there is not a whisper of any specific requirement or ground at the present stage or formation of any reasoned opinion for provisionally attaching the said bank accounts; moreover, no Section 74 proceedings had in fact been initiated. The Court observed that if such a reason were allowed to stand, in all proceedings wherein show cause notice is issued under Section 74, provisional attachment would become valid, and held the order perverse and arbitrary. The attachment notices were quashed with a direction to release the accounts within 48 hours, with liberty to the Revenue to issue a fresh notice under Section 83 in accordance with law. On the credit ledger, the authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s reply, grant a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order within two weeks.
BackgroundThe petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and its corresponding Maharashtra provision. During the hearing, the Respondents pointed out that the Kerala, Patna and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had upheld the validity of the impugned provisions, while the petitioner relied upon a recent decision of the Gauhati High Court which had struck down the provision.The petitioner also challenged an order dated 28 February 2025 raising a GST demand of ₹1 crore, along with an additional ₹1 crore towards penalty and interest. The petitioner did not dispute the dues but contended that the liability should be borne by the fifth respondent. It was also submitted that the fifth respondent had already paid ₹21 lakhs towards GST liability.Court ObservationThe Court, prima facie, held that the State should not be deprived of its dues merely because of the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent regarding who was liable to pay the dues. The Court was not prepared to accept that payment of ₹21 lakhs by the fifth respondent discharged the entire tax liability. If the petitioner believed that the liability was of the fifth respondent, it could initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the amount from that respondent.The Court further observed that, despite issuing Rule, the existence of conflicting decisions on the constitutional validity of the provision meant that this was not a case for granting an unconditional stay. It also noted that at least three High Courts had already upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned provision.Final VerdictThe Court issued Rule in the writ petition and also issued notice to the Attorney General for India because a provision of the Central statute was under challenge. However, it declined to grant an unconditional stay on recovery.The Court stayed recovery pursuant to the order dated 28 February 2025 subject to the petitioner depositing ₹20 lakhs in Court within six weeks from the date of uploading of the order. The stay would automatically stand vacated if the deposit and due intimation to the Respondents were not made.
Christie's India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 20-09-2025
BackgroundThe petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and its corresponding Maharashtra provision. During the hearing, the Respondents pointed out that the Kerala, Patna and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had upheld the validity of the impugned provisions, while the petitioner relied upon a recent decision of the Gauhati High Court which had struck down the provision.The petitioner also challenged an order dated 28 February 2025 raising a GST demand of ₹1 crore, along with an additional ₹1 crore towards penalty and interest. The petitioner did not dispute the dues but contended that the liability should be borne by the fifth respondent. It was also submitted that the fifth respondent had already paid ₹21 lakhs towards GST liability.Court ObservationThe Court, prima facie, held that the State should not be deprived of its dues merely because of the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent regarding who was liable to pay the dues. The Court was not prepared to accept that payment of ₹21 lakhs by the fifth respondent discharged the entire tax liability. If the petitioner believed that the liability was of the fifth respondent, it could initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the amount from that respondent.The Court further observed that, despite issuing Rule, the existence of conflicting decisions on the constitutional validity of the provision meant that this was not a case for granting an unconditional stay. It also noted that at least three High Courts had already upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned provision.Final VerdictThe Court issued Rule in the writ petition and also issued notice to the Attorney General for India because a provision of the Central statute was under challenge. However, it declined to grant an unconditional stay on recovery.The Court stayed recovery pursuant to the order dated 28 February 2025 subject to the petitioner depositing ₹20 lakhs in Court within six weeks from the date of uploading of the order. The stay would automatically stand vacated if the deposit and due intimation to the Respondents were not made.
BackgroundThe petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and its corresponding Maharashtra provision. During the hearing, the Respondents pointed out that the Kerala, Patna and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had upheld the validity of the impugned provisions, while the petitioner relied upon a recent decision of the Gauhati High Court which had struck down the provision.The petitioner also challenged an order dated 28 February 2025 raising a GST demand of ₹1 crore, along with an additional ₹1 crore towards penalty and interest. The petitioner did not dispute the dues but contended that the liability should be borne by the fifth respondent. It was also submitted that the fifth respondent had already paid ₹21 lakhs towards GST liability.Court ObservationThe Court, prima facie, held that the State should not be deprived of its dues merely because of the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent regarding who was liable to pay the dues. The Court was not prepared to accept that payment of ₹21 lakhs by the fifth respondent discharged the entire tax liability. If the petitioner believed that the liability was of the fifth respondent, it could initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the amount from that respondent.The Court further observed that, despite issuing Rule, the existence of conflicting decisions on the constitutional validity of the provision meant that this was not a case for granting an unconditional stay. It also noted that at least three High Courts had already upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned provision.Final VerdictThe Court issued Rule in the writ petition and also issued notice to the Attorney General for India because a provision of the Central statute was under challenge. However, it declined to grant an unconditional stay on recovery.The Court stayed recovery pursuant to the order dated 28 February 2025 subject to the petitioner depositing ₹20 lakhs in Court within six weeks from the date of uploading of the order. The stay would automatically stand vacated if the deposit and due intimation to the Respondents were not made.
Christie's India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 20-09-2025
BackgroundThe petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and its corresponding Maharashtra provision. During the hearing, the Respondents pointed out that the Kerala, Patna and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had upheld the validity of the impugned provisions, while the petitioner relied upon a recent decision of the Gauhati High Court which had struck down the provision.The petitioner also challenged an order dated 28 February 2025 raising a GST demand of ₹1 crore, along with an additional ₹1 crore towards penalty and interest. The petitioner did not dispute the dues but contended that the liability should be borne by the fifth respondent. It was also submitted that the fifth respondent had already paid ₹21 lakhs towards GST liability.Court ObservationThe Court, prima facie, held that the State should not be deprived of its dues merely because of the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent regarding who was liable to pay the dues. The Court was not prepared to accept that payment of ₹21 lakhs by the fifth respondent discharged the entire tax liability. If the petitioner believed that the liability was of the fifth respondent, it could initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the amount from that respondent.The Court further observed that, despite issuing Rule, the existence of conflicting decisions on the constitutional validity of the provision meant that this was not a case for granting an unconditional stay. It also noted that at least three High Courts had already upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned provision.Final VerdictThe Court issued Rule in the writ petition and also issued notice to the Attorney General for India because a provision of the Central statute was under challenge. However, it declined to grant an unconditional stay on recovery.The Court stayed recovery pursuant to the order dated 28 February 2025 subject to the petitioner depositing ₹20 lakhs in Court within six weeks from the date of uploading of the order. The stay would automatically stand vacated if the deposit and due intimation to the Respondents were not made.
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice issued for recovery of tax dues of a company in which he was a director. An assessment order had been passed against the company for the tax period 2018–19. The petitioner claimed resignation from the company and sought immunity under Section 89(1), submitting a representation to authorities. The company had separately challenged the assessment order, which was pending before the Court. Court Decision:The Court held that the issue of petitioner’s liability under Section 89 requires adjudication. It directed the authorities to treat the impugned attachment notice as a show cause notice and decide the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation within 30 days, and the authority to pass orders within two months thereafter. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted pending such adjudication, subject to conditions.
Subir Ghosh v. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors. 17-09-2025
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice issued for recovery of tax dues of a company in which he was a director. An assessment order had been passed against the company for the tax period 2018–19. The petitioner claimed resignation from the company and sought immunity under Section 89(1), submitting a representation to authorities. The company had separately challenged the assessment order, which was pending before the Court. Court Decision:The Court held that the issue of petitioner’s liability under Section 89 requires adjudication. It directed the authorities to treat the impugned attachment notice as a show cause notice and decide the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation within 30 days, and the authority to pass orders within two months thereafter. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted pending such adjudication, subject to conditions.
Facts:The petitioner, a registered assessee, was subjected to inspection and show cause notices were issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22. Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.02.2024 demanding tax, interest and penalty were passed. The petitioner contended that the orders were only uploaded on the GST portal and were not otherwise communicated, resulting in the lapse of the time limit for filing appeal under Section 107.Court Decision:The Court held that Section 107 provides that limitation for filing appeal runs from the date on which the order is “communicated” to the assessee. Section 169 deals with modes of “service”, but the expressions “served” and “communicated” are not synonymous. Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not amount to communication of the order to the assessee.Since the impugned orders had only been uploaded on the portal and were not communicated to the petitioner through other modes, the limitation period for filing appeal had not commenced. The Court directed the authority to communicate the impugned orders to the petitioner, after which the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 107. Until such communication, the orders could not be enforced. Cases Referred by Court:· Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Nungambakkam Zone IV, Chennai Central Range, Chennai, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8986· Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract, Palakad, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11392· Ram Prasad Sharma v. Chief Commissioner, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4650· New Hanumat Marbles v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7171· Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456· Shahul Hameed v. CTO, Tuticorin-II (WP(MD) No.26481 of 2024)· Namasivaya Auto Cars v. The Deputy Sales Tax Officer-I, Korattur, 2025 (6) TMI 2027· Binod Traders v. Union of India, 2025 (6) TMI 251 (Patna High Court)· Raj International v. Commissioner (CGST), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2707· A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kanchipuram, 1972 SCC OnLine Mad 347· R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1994) 1 AC 530· NHAI v. Madhukar Kumar, (2022) 14 SCC 661· Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, 2025 INSC 236· Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108· Lalaram Thekedar v. Union of India, Writ Tax No.2786 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) & Another 17-09-2025
Facts:The petitioner, a registered assessee, was subjected to inspection and show cause notices were issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22. Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.02.2024 demanding tax, interest and penalty were passed. The petitioner contended that the orders were only uploaded on the GST portal and were not otherwise communicated, resulting in the lapse of the time limit for filing appeal under Section 107.Court Decision:The Court held that Section 107 provides that limitation for filing appeal runs from the date on which the order is “communicated” to the assessee. Section 169 deals with modes of “service”, but the expressions “served” and “communicated” are not synonymous. Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not amount to communication of the order to the assessee.Since the impugned orders had only been uploaded on the portal and were not communicated to the petitioner through other modes, the limitation period for filing appeal had not commenced. The Court directed the authority to communicate the impugned orders to the petitioner, after which the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 107. Until such communication, the orders could not be enforced. Cases Referred by Court:· Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Nungambakkam Zone IV, Chennai Central Range, Chennai, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8986· Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract, Palakad, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11392· Ram Prasad Sharma v. Chief Commissioner, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4650· New Hanumat Marbles v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7171· Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456· Shahul Hameed v. CTO, Tuticorin-II (WP(MD) No.26481 of 2024)· Namasivaya Auto Cars v. The Deputy Sales Tax Officer-I, Korattur, 2025 (6) TMI 2027· Binod Traders v. Union of India, 2025 (6) TMI 251 (Patna High Court)· Raj International v. Commissioner (CGST), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2707· A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kanchipuram, 1972 SCC OnLine Mad 347· R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1994) 1 AC 530· NHAI v. Madhukar Kumar, (2022) 14 SCC 661· Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, 2025 INSC 236· Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108· Lalaram Thekedar v. Union of India, Writ Tax No.2786 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
BackgroundThe assessee, engaged in construction services, did not comply with summons under Section 70. Alleging misuse of ITC, the department provisionally attached its ICICI Bank account on 29.01.2025, reciting that proceedings under Sections 74 and 122 had been initiated. The learned Single Judge quashed the attachment for want of a pre-decisional hearing, relying on K-9 Enterprises. The Revenue appealed, confining the challenge to the bank attachment.Final VerdictOn the first point, the Division Bench held that Section 83, read plainly in line with CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, does not require a pre-decisional hearing even by implication; the statute provides a post-attachment hearing through objections under Rule 159(5), and K-9 Enterprises did not concern Section 83. To that extent the Revenue succeeded. On the second point, the Revenue produced no material showing initiation of proceedings under Sections 74 and 122, and argued that summons under Section 70 itself constituted proceedings. Applying Armour Security (India) Ltd. (SC), where summons was held to be only a step in an inquiry, the Court held that the mere issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act is not sufficient to invoke provisional attachment under Section 83. Even though the order-sheet showed an opinion supported by tangible material, provisional attachment in the absence of initiation of any proceedings under Chapters XII, XIV or XV of the Act is not sustainable. The writ appeal was allowed in part: the finding requiring a pre-decisional hearing was set aside, but the attachment of the bank account dated 29.01.2025 was quashed.
Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore East & Anr. v. M/s Narasimhan Engineering Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 10-09-2025
BackgroundThe assessee, engaged in construction services, did not comply with summons under Section 70. Alleging misuse of ITC, the department provisionally attached its ICICI Bank account on 29.01.2025, reciting that proceedings under Sections 74 and 122 had been initiated. The learned Single Judge quashed the attachment for want of a pre-decisional hearing, relying on K-9 Enterprises. The Revenue appealed, confining the challenge to the bank attachment.Final VerdictOn the first point, the Division Bench held that Section 83, read plainly in line with CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, does not require a pre-decisional hearing even by implication; the statute provides a post-attachment hearing through objections under Rule 159(5), and K-9 Enterprises did not concern Section 83. To that extent the Revenue succeeded. On the second point, the Revenue produced no material showing initiation of proceedings under Sections 74 and 122, and argued that summons under Section 70 itself constituted proceedings. Applying Armour Security (India) Ltd. (SC), where summons was held to be only a step in an inquiry, the Court held that the mere issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act is not sufficient to invoke provisional attachment under Section 83. Even though the order-sheet showed an opinion supported by tangible material, provisional attachment in the absence of initiation of any proceedings under Chapters XII, XIV or XV of the Act is not sustainable. The writ appeal was allowed in part: the finding requiring a pre-decisional hearing was set aside, but the attachment of the bank account dated 29.01.2025 was quashed.
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.
Wingtech Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy 03-09-2025
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.
Facts :The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 02.02.2025 on the ground that notices for personal hearing were not received. The Department produced records showing that hearing notices were sent to the registered email address of the petitioner as available on the GST portal. The petitioner also argued that a consolidated notice/order for multiple financial periods was impermissible. The dispute involved allegations relating to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.Court Decision:The Court held that service of notice through the registered email address under Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act constitutes valid service. It found that hearing notices were duly sent to the petitioner’s registered email and the plea of non-service was not sustainable. On the issue of consolidated proceedings, the Court held that in cases involving fraudulent ITC spanning multiple periods, issuance of consolidated notice/order is permissible under Sections 73 and 74. The Court found no violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error and dismissed the writ petition with costs.Cases Referred:Rishi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, NorthMrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxState of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd.Bennet and White (Calgary) Ltd. v. Municipal District of Sugar City No. 5Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central ExciseAmbika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, DGGSTI
Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors. 26-08-2025
Facts :The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 02.02.2025 on the ground that notices for personal hearing were not received. The Department produced records showing that hearing notices were sent to the registered email address of the petitioner as available on the GST portal. The petitioner also argued that a consolidated notice/order for multiple financial periods was impermissible. The dispute involved allegations relating to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.Court Decision:The Court held that service of notice through the registered email address under Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act constitutes valid service. It found that hearing notices were duly sent to the petitioner’s registered email and the plea of non-service was not sustainable. On the issue of consolidated proceedings, the Court held that in cases involving fraudulent ITC spanning multiple periods, issuance of consolidated notice/order is permissible under Sections 73 and 74. The Court found no violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error and dismissed the writ petition with costs.Cases Referred:Rishi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, NorthMrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxState of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd.Bennet and White (Calgary) Ltd. v. Municipal District of Sugar City No. 5Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central ExciseAmbika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, DGGSTI
