S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
74

Assessment order
based upon
amount
mentioned in
eway bill being
different from
Invoice quashed
considering the
human error in
generating Eway
Bill

Jena Trading and
Co. v. CT and GST
Officer [2023] 150
taxmann.com 339
(Orissa

In the case, petitioner had generated a tax invoice for an amount of Rs.1,97,047.86. As, he did not have the computer, the same was a self
generated document. Further an e-Way Bill was prepared, wherein the total taxable amount was shown to be Rs.197047086.00. This figure
was a typographical mistake. Therefore, though the figure is tallying but the paise has been entered in rupees, which has created difficulty
on the part of the petitioner, because he is a small dealer and cannot have taxable amount of Rs.197047086.00.
The department contended that the assessment order had been passed by the assessing authority under Section 74 of the OGST Act with
intimation through DRC-01A for the cause of less filing of return for the period of 2019-20, as per the information under possession of the
authority, and whereas, no response received against the above mentioned intimation for which online notice in DRC-01 was issued and, as
such, no response was received on above.
The High Court held there was a palpable error in the way bill, which may be construed to be an human error. If this fact was to be brought
to the notice of the assessing authority, the same could be considered in accordance with law and fresh assessment order could be passed.
Thus the High Court quashed the order and matter was remitted back to the assessing authority for reconsideration in accordance with law

2

Section
112

Status of
Recovery of
demand on
account of nonconstitution of
Tribunal

Ritesh Infratech
(P.) Ltd. v. Union of
India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 340
(Patna)

The High Court held that subject to verification of the fact of deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute,
or deposit of the same, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the
B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, for he
cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The recovery of balance amount,
and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.
Case Referred-SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others in C.W.J.C. No. 15465 of 2022

3

Section
30

Appellant directed
to avail benefit of
N. No. 03/2023-
CT Dt. 31.03.2023
for Revocation of
cancelled
registration

[2023] 150
taxmann.com 341
(Gujarat) Radhe
Packaging v.
Union of India

The cancellation of GST Registration was ordered on the ground that the tax payer had not filed GST returns for more than six months and
that the tax payer has not responded by filing such returns. The Assistant Government Pleader produced copy of the Notification No. 03/2023-
Central Tax Dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 before the High Court.
The High Court thus held that Clause (c) of the Notification would apply to the facts of this case for which there is no dispute. As the Notification
would indisputably apply to the facts of this case, the petitioner was directed to approach the competent authority to avail the benefit of the
Notification and seek revocation of the cancellation of registration.

4

Section
83

Operation of order
provisionally
attaching bank
account ceases to
be operative after
expiry of one year

Merlin Facilities
(P.) Ltd. v. Union of
India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 373
(Delhi)

The High Court held that it is clear from Section 83(2) of the CGST Act that the operation of an order provisionally attaching the bank account
would cease to be operative after the expiry of the statutory period of one year. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated
13.01.2021 was declared to be ceased to be operative and thus it was held that no orders were required for setting aside the same

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

section
100

Extension of the
limitation period for
filing Appeal before
AAAR beyond the
period allowed for
condonation of
delay in the Statute

Indian Institute of
Corporate Affairs
v. Delhi Appellate
Authority for
Advance Ruling
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 505
(Delhi)

The High Court held that since the appeal was filed before the AAAR on 14.02.2020, which was beyond the period of sixty days from the
date on which the petitioner received the order dated 28.06.2019 or from the date it became aware of the constitution of the Appellate
Authority, the delay was in excess of the period that could be condoned by the appellant. In view of the above, High Court held that they
were unable to find fault with the decision of the Appellate Authority in declining to entertain the petitioner's appeal under Section 100 of
the Act.
Case Referred-State of Goa v. Western Builders: (2006) 6 SCC 239 and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission and Ors.: 2010 (5) SCC 23

2

Section 9

Stay Petition on
GST on Mining
Royalty dismissed

Rajasthan Granite
Mining
Association
v. Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 501
(Rajasthan)

The High Court observed that the counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to dispute the fact that the issue regarding demand of GST
on royalty paid to the respondent - Mining Department towards mining lease has already been decided by the Court in Sudershan Lal
Gupta's and Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog's case. In view of the above, high court dismissed the writ petition in terms of the orders
passed by the Court in Sudershan Lal Gupta's case and Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog's case). The stay petition was also dismissed.
Case Referred- Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog v. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5678/2022) and Sudershan
Lal Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8109/2022

3

Section
29 and
Section
30

Principle of Natural
Justice not followed
before cancellation
of registration

S.P. Metals v.
Assistant
Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 498
(Karnataka)

The petitioner was aggrieved by the first respondent's order dated 30.11.2022. It was contended by the petitioner that when he was still in
custody, department cancelled the GST registration on 30.11.2022 recording that on examination of the petitioner's case against
cancellation they were of the opinion that it should be cancelled. If the petitioner was in custody from 16.11.2022 until 08.12.2022 when he
was admitted to bail and released, the petitioner could not have been served with Show Cause Notice dated 17.11.2022 and he could not
have issued any response, but the GST registration was cancelled based on the said Show Cause Notice holding that petitioner's response
was considered.
The High Court observed that the department has recorded what appears to be a stereotype opinion because in the circumstances of the
case it cannot even be argued that the petitioner could have issued response. Therefore, the Court interfered with the impugned order on
the ground of arbitrariness and allowed petitioner to furnish the returns for the period for which the returns were not filed as a condition for
revocation of the cancellation as against a cancellation by this order without any condition.

4

Section
54

Rule 89(4) is not
applicable in case of
refund on account of
export of services
with payment of tax

OHMI Industries
Asia (P.) Ltd. v.
Assistant
Commissioner,
Central Goods and
Services Tax
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 497
(Delhi

The proper officer had rejected petitioner's claim of refund on account of export of services without payment of tax by referring to Subclause (D) of Rule 89(4) of the Rules on the ground that the turnover reflected for the month of October, 2018 ought to be considered as
the turnover for the month of November, 2018 when the remittances were received. The petitioner appealed against the decision of proper
officer rejecting the refund contending Rule 89(4) of the Rules does not apply. The petitioner submitted that Rule 89(4) of the Rules applied
only for refund in respect to exports made without payment of integrated tax. The petitioner pointed out that it was not seeking refund of
accumulated ITC but integrated tax as paid by him and that there was no dispute that the petitioner had discharged his liability of payment
of integrated tax.
The High Court held that the opening sentence of Rule 89(4) of the Rules makes it amply clear that it applies only in cases of zero rated
supply of goods or services, without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking and thus Rule 89(4) of the Rules is inapplicable to
cases of refund of integrated tax paid on zero rated supply

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
29 and
Section
30

Petitioner directed to
file application for
revocation of
Cancellation of
Registration as per
notification no.
3/2023-CTdt 31-3-23

Anandkumar Ramdeo
Singh v.
Commissioner
(Appeals-I) GST and
Central Tax [2023] 151
taxmann.com 13
(Karnataka)

The High Court observed that the notification dated 31.03.2023 has been issued providing for revocation of cancellation of the
registration. Since the cancellation was under the provisions of Section 29(2) of the CGST Act and such cancellation was before
31.12.2022, and an application for revocation was not filed, the High Court stated that application be submitted that in terms of this
notification.

2

Section
74 and
Section
75

A vague notice is
violation of provision
in Section 75 since
the Statute itself
prescribes for
affording reasonable
opportunity and any
deficiency in that
regard vitiates the
result.

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 12
(Madhya Pradesh)
Balaji Electricals
v. Appellate Authority
& Joint Commissioner
State Tax.

The High Court observed that even though the petitioner had not specifically raised the said ground before the appellate authority
but the fact remained that mandatory provisions of Section 74 of GST Act make it incumbent upon the Revenue to ensure the show
cause notice to be speaking enough to enable the assessee to respond to the same. However, SCN revealed that it neither contained
the material and information nor the statement containing details of ITC transaction under question. It was further observed that
Section 75 of GST Act is a complete Code which prescribes for various stages for determination of wrongful utilization of ITC while
following the concept of reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since the Statute itself prescribes for affording
reasonable opportunity, it is incumbent upon the Revenue to afford the same and any deficiency in that regard vitiates the result.
The High Court held that it had no manner of doubt that the very initiation of the proceedings by way of show cause notice was
vitiated for the same being vague.
Case Referred- Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises v. The State of Jharkhand & ors) including WP(T) No.745/2021 14thth, September
2022,

3

Section 9

to bear GST Burden
in case of Pre and
Post GST Contracts
wherein impact of
GST was not
considered while
preparing BOQ

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 12
(Madhya Pradesh)
Balaji Electricals
v. Appellate Authority
& Joint Commissioner
State Tax.

The matter in the instant petition was to give by way of direction upon the respondent authority concerned to bear the additional tax
liability for execution of subsisting Government contracts either awarded in the pre-GST regime or in the post GST regime without
updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for inviting the bids
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representations in the aforesaid
regard before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On
receipt of such representations the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department was directed to take a final decision within four
months from the date of receipt of such representation after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned.

4

Section
112

Status of Recovery of
demand on account
of non-constitution of
Tribunal.

Flipkart India (P.) Ltd.
v. Additional
Commissioner of
State Tax (Appeal)
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 10
(Patna)

The High Court held that subject to verification of the fact of deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in
dispute, or deposit of the same, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section
107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the
B.G.S.T. Act, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The
recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.
Case Referred- AJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Others in C.W.J.C. No. 15465 of 2022

5

Section
69 and
Section
132

Rejection of
Anticipatory Bail

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 9 (SC)
Sheetal Mittal v. State
of Rajasthan

The Supreme Court held that looking to the role attributed to the petitioner(s) and the observations made by the High Court that the
GST number, name of the firm were fabricated and other details were found to be non-existent, there was no case for anticipatory
bail. The Special Leave Petitions were thus dismissed

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
29

Decision of
Appellate Authority
on issues neither
part of Show Cause
Notice and nor part
of Order

Ajay Building
Material v. State
of U.P.
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 6
(Allahabad)

The High Court held that the order dated 01.12.2020 fell short of the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the appellate
order dated 30.12.2021 clearly exceeds the power conferred upon the appellate authority as it decides the appeal on the issues which were
neither a part of the show-cause notice nor was a consideration when the order dated 01.12.2020 was passed.
Cases Referred- M/s Chandra Sain, v. U.O.I & Ors. (Writ Tax No.147 of 2022) decided on 22.09.2022 as well as M/S Precitech
Engineeers v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Tax No.1583 of 2022) decided on 14.03.2023

2

9966

Diesel
Reimbursement to
form part of Vehicle
Hire Charges

Uttarakhand
Public Financial
Strengthening
Project [2023]
151
taxmann.com 5
(AARUTTARAKHAND)

The Authority held that without fuel the motor vehicle does not operate (run) and without running i.e. moving from one place to another, the
act of motor vehicle hire services does not happen. The motor vehicle hire services have the integral component of running/ operating the
vehicle to one place to another for transportation. Therefore, to claim to provide the said services, actual transportation has to take place
and without fuel this cannot happen. The contract entered between the applicant and the provider of services is for motor vehicle hire
services, wherein the liability to arrange fuel and the maintenance of the vehicle, so deployed lies with the service provider and is a
comprehensive contract with the consideration which varies depending upon the kilometer travelled. Therefore, reimbursement of expenses
for providing said services, under any head is nothing but the additional consideration for the provision of said services and attracts GST on
the total value.
Cases Referred- M/s. Goodwill Auto’s, Hubbali; Dharwad (Karnataka AAR), M/s Vinayak Air Products Pvt. Ltd (Uttarakhand AAR),
M/s Gurjinder Singh Sandhu (Uttarakhan AAR), M/s Tara Genset Engineers (Uttarakhand AAR)

3

Section
69 and
Section
132

Bail granted as
petitioner had faced
incarceration for
more than 1½ years,
complaint still at
summon stage,
other accused
extended benefit of
bail

Kawaljot Singh
v.
Superintendent
Preventive,
CGST
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 4
(Punjab &
Haryana)

The High Court observed that the quantum of amount which the petitioner was involved was yet to be decided at the time of trial. The
petitioner had already faced incarceration for more than 1½ years. The complaint is still at the summoning stage. The other two accused
had already been extended the benefit of default bail and one more co-accused was granted regular bail by the Court who is stated to be
at parity with the present petitioner.
Thus, the High Court considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also considering the total custody of the petitioner which was
more than 1½ years, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner

4

Section
65,
Section
73/74
and
Section
161

Rectification of
Audit Report

Singh Caterers
and Vendors v.
Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 3
(Patna)

The petitioner was aggrieved with the audit report issued under section 65(6) and the non-consideration of the rectification application, the
petitioner made under Section 161 of the Act.
The High Court observed that re-examination of the Audit Report by application under section 161 is not a permissible exercise. The
Assessing Officer had rightly found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, which could be rectified under section 161
and that in any event, section 73 proceedings had been initiated based on the final audit report. The Assessing Officer has also noted that
submission if any made by the tax payer would be taken on record. The Proper Officer has looked at the audit report and has recorded his
satisfaction in the show-cause notice on items raised in the audit report and which enables assessee to raise objections against the same.
Therefore, the High Court was of the opinion that there was no reason why writ petition should be entertained when the rectification
application, on which basis the proceedings under section 73 is sought to be kept in abeyance. If the Assessing Officer has not completed
the proceedings, the petitioner would be entitled to file his objections and seek for consideration of the same before the Assessing Officer