Case Facts / Background:The petitioner challenged an order dated 28 January 2025 passed under Section 83 of the MGST Act attaching its bank account. The department alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 17(5)(d) and initiated proceedings under Section 67. The petitioner contended that the issue was purely legal and relied on judicial precedent and CBIC guidelines. It was argued that the attachment severely impacted business operations and lacked proper justification. Court Decision:The Court held that the power under Section 83 is drastic and must be exercised strictly in accordance with statutory conditions. It observed that no material was placed on record to show that the petitioner was likely to defeat the demand or that attachment was necessary to protect revenue. The impugned order was found to be based on insufficient reasoning and amounted to a colourable exercise of power. Upon instructions, the State agreed to withdraw the attachment order. The Court set aside the order and directed immediate operation of the bank account. Cases Referred by Court:Radha Krishan Industries vs State of Himachal PradeshSafari Retreats (Supreme Court judgment referred in context of ITC eligibility)  

Court DecisionThe Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.The Court noted that the High Court had quashed the show cause notices seeking recovery of ₹3731 crores from the respondent, holding that:The basic jurisdictional requirements were not attracted for invoking Section 122(1A) and Section 137 of the CGST Act.No principle of vicarious liability could be read into Sections 122 and 137.The respondent was merely an employee and could not be fastened with the liability alleged against the company.The Supreme Court held that it saw no good reason to interfere with the common impugned orders passed by the High Court.However, the Court clarified that the question of law regarding the interpretation of Sections 122(1A) and 137 of the CGST Act was kept open.Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and pending applications were disposed of. Cases Referred by the CourtShantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs. Union of India & Ors., WPL Nos. 30198/2023, 30199/2023, 30200/2023 & 30241/2023 (Bombay High Court, judgment dated 28 March 2024)

Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 07.08.2024 for the years 2019-20 and 2022-23 and the rectification order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was vague and that the limitation for filing appeal should not be computed from the date of the original assessment order since a rectification application under Section 161 had been filed and rejected later.Court Decision:The Court held that when a rectification application under Section 161 of the GST Act is filed, the rectification order merges with the original assessment order. If the rectification application is rejected, the limitation period for filing an appeal against the original assessment order cannot be computed from the date of the original order. The limitation would commence from the date on which the rectification application is disposed of.Since the rectification order was passed on 12.11.2024, the limitation for filing appeal against the assessment order dated 07.08.2024 would be reckoned from 12.11.2024. The writ petitions were disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal and clarifying that limitation shall be calculated from the date of rejection of the rectification application.Cases Referred by Court:·         MD Electric Co. v. State Tax Officer, Chennai, (2024) 17 Centax 348 (Mad.) 

Facts of the CaseThe present proceedings arose out of an application filed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) seeking modification of paragraph 9 of an earlier order dated 18 July 2024 passed by the High Court. The earlier order had directed the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, to proceed with grant of “financial sanction” and to float a comprehensive tender for establishing hybrid court infrastructure in all 691 courts, including 14 pilot courts.The GNCTD submitted that the overall project involved expenditure exceeding Rs. 100 crore and, as per prevailing financial rules, required approval from the Expenditure Finance Committee. It was therefore requested that the expression “financial sanction” be replaced with “administrative sanction.” The GNCTD further sought permission to float tenders initially only for 14 pilot courts instead of all 691 courts, with eligibility conditions requiring bidders to have technical and financial competence to execute the entire project. It was also contended that floating a comprehensive tender at once might make it difficult to revise ICT specifications after testing the pilot courts.The matter thus came before the Court to determine:Whether paragraph 9 of the earlier order required modification regarding the nature of sanction.Whether the tender process should be limited to 14 pilot courts at the initial stage.Court Observations and DecisionThe Court held that mere substitution of the term “financial sanction” with “administrative sanction” was not appropriate. Instead, it directed that the expression be replaced with “administrative and financial sanction and all other necessary sanctions/approvals,” in accordance with applicable financial rules.On the request to limit the tender process to 14 pilot courts, the Court rejected the proposal. It observed that restricting the tender to pilot courts while imposing eligibility conditions related to all 691 courts could lead to complications and delay, thereby undermining comprehensive and timely execution of the project.The Court emphasized the urgent need for adequate hybrid court infrastructure in Delhi District Courts, particularly in light of the enactment and enforcement of new criminal laws, including Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates audio-video recording of certain procedural acts. It held that expeditious implementation of infrastructure was essential.Accordingly, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, to proceed simultaneously and expedite the grant of administrative and financial sanction and all other necessary approvals for all 691 courts, as per the preliminary estimate dated 19 April 2024 amounting to Rs. 387,03,19,388/-, based on the configuration approved by the National Informatics Centre (NIC).The Court further directed that a comprehensive tender for all 691 courts, including 14 pilot courts, shall be floated. It clarified that the successful bidder must initially set up 14 hybrid courts on a pilot basis within one month from the date of award, and after approval by competent authorities, proceed with setting up the remaining courts with necessary modifications, if any.Case ReferredThe judgment does not refer to or rely upon any prior judicial precedents.

Facts :The appellant challenged an assessment order on the ground that it was only uploaded on the GST portal and not otherwise communicated. It was contended that the portal was not notified for uploading orders and therefore service was invalid. The appellant claimed lack of knowledge due to delayed access to the portal. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition directing the appellant to avail alternate remedy.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that Section 169 expressly permits service of orders by making them available on the common portal. It ruled that once a portal is notified under Section 146, it can be used for all statutory functions including communication of orders. The Court found that the appellant had in fact accessed and downloaded the order, and delay was attributable to the appellant. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the Single Judge was upheld.Cases Referred:None mentioned in the judgment.