S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
107

Condonation of
appeal filed
beyond the
time period

Penuel Nexus (P.) Ltd.
v. Additional
Commissioner,
Headquarters (Appeals)
[2023]152 taxmann.com
208 (Kerala)

The matter was related to cancellation of registration and the issue before the High court was about condonation of time period for filing an
appeal be filed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 107 (4) of CGST Act, 2017.
The High Court while dismissing the petition by holding it time barred held that CGST Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by
itself. It is trite, that the Limitation Act will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. It is also rudimentary that the provisions of a
fiscal statute have to be strictly construed and interpreted

2

Section
78 and
Section
107

Recovery of
the demand
after expiry of
the Normal
period for filing
of Appeal but
before
extended
period for
which
condonation is
allowed

Stallion Energy (P.) Ltd.
v. Union of India [2023]
152 taxmann.com 211
(Gujarat)

The adjudication order came to be passed on 02.03.2022 and petitioner was directed to make the payment of total amount of Rs.56,14,388/-
. Thereafter order of provisional attachment of property under Section 83 came to be passed on 16.06.2022 and out of the total amount of
Rs.56,14,388, Rs.46 lakhs came to be withdrawn by the respondents from the bank account of petitioner maintained with HDFC Bank. The
petitioner preferred an appeal on 04.07.2022 under Section 107 of the Act before the Appellate Authority and as there was delay in preferring
the said appeal and therefore petitioner had filed separate application for condonation of delay. It was also stated that as per the provisions
contained in Section 107 of the Act, the petitioner was required to pre-deposit 10% of the amount of tax before the Appellate Authority but
the respondents had already withdrew an amount of Rs.46 lakh from the account of the petitioner maintained with HDFC Bank. The
petitioner, therefore, urged that respondents be directed to refund the remaining amount i.e. Rs.42,44,664/-.
The High Court while observing that the condonation application is till pending held that the contention of the petitioner was
misconceived in view of the provisions contained in Section 73(9) read with Sections 78 and 107 of the Act and If appeal filed by
the petitioner is allowed by the Appellate Authority, it is always open for the petitioner to make such request before the Appellate
Authority that direction be issued to the respondents to refund the amount.

3

Section
129

Levy of Penalty
dropped for
failure to
extend validity
of Eway Bill

Pushpa Devi Jain v.
Assistant
Commissioner of
Revenue [2023] 152
taxmann.com 239
(Calcutta)

The goods were detained as e-way bill had expired at 11:59 hours on 22nd April, 2022 and it had to be revalidated by 8 a.m. on 23rd April,
2022. However, said date was a Saturday and the vehicle was intercepted at 8.52 a.m. There was no other allegation against the petitioner.
The High Court considered the peculiar facts of the case and observed that there was no lack of bona fide on the part of the appellant to
state that there was wilful misconduct committed by the appellant while transporting the goods. There was every possibility that even if
an application was made for extension of the e-way bill within the time permitted, 23rd April, 2022 being a Saturday, the e-way bill,
in all probabilities, would not have been revalidated within the eight hours period. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the order
was set aside by holding that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority could not have imposed penalty on the
appellant

4

Section
73

No Date, Time
and Venue of
personal
hearing
mentioned and
for columns
3,4&5 of Date,
Time & Venue,
NA being
mentio

Agarwal Wheels (P.)
Ltd.
v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [2023] 152
taxmann.com 243
(Madhya Pradesh)

SCN was issued making mention about personal hearing to the effect that "you may appear before the undersigned for personal hearing
either in person or through authorized representative for representing your case on the date, time and venue, if mentioned in table below",
but no date, time and venue for personal hearing was shown in the notice.
The High Court observed that SCN issued itself shows that before passing final order dated 24.08.2022, the intention of the respondents
was to give personal hearing to the petitioner, but in the table given, captioned as "Details of personal hearing etc.", no Date,
Time and Venue of personal hearing was shown and in front of columns 3,4&5 of Date, Time and Venue, NA was mentioned,
which is sufficient to infer that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated
24.08.2022. The impugned order was held to be non-sustainable and was quashed and the matter was remitted back for passing order
afresh.
Case Referred- Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 (59) G.S.T.L. 394 (All.)

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
29 and
Section
30

Opportunity of
being heard to
be given
before
cancellation of
registration

VIP Chem
Traders v.
Union of India
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
159 (Gujarat)

The petitioner received notice dated 06.12.2022 inter alia stating that registration of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled due to "returns furnished
by you under section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017". The petitioner was called upon to file reply within 30 days.
High Court set aside the order by stating that there is no gainsaying that the notice since was issued for cancelling the GST registration of the
petitioner, if the final order against the petitioner was to be adverse, it will operate to the detriment and prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the
process of adjudication post issuance of show-cause notice would necessitate observance of natural justice and providing reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and submit appropriate facts and details in relation to the show-cause notice

2

Section
73 and
Section
74

Ex-Parte
Assessment
order set
aside as the
petitioner had
valid ground
for seeking
adjournment

EPMS Property
Services (P.)
Ltd. v. State
Tax Officer
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
171 (Madras)

Notices were issued on 26.08.2019 calling for various particulars for finalizing the assessments. Petitioner could not attend the personal hearing as
its authorised representative was ill. Hence, the orders of assessment came to be passed, without further reference to the petitioner. The petitioner
filed statutory appeals challenging the assessments. The appeals were filed on 20.02.2020. Inter alia, the appeal memorandum contained an error,
in that, the date of receipt of the order was stated as '21.10.2019' instead of 29.09.2019.
The High Court held that orders of assessment suffer from violation of principles of natural justice and the exchange of correspondence between the
parties establishes that the petitioner was cooperating with the proceedings for assessment. This, and the request contained in letter dated
10.09.2019, lead to the conclusion that orders were set aside and the petitioner should be afforded an effective opportunity of hearing and
has been denied the same prior to passing of the orders impugned.

3

Section
74 and
Section
75

Opportunity of
being heard to
be provided in
pursuance of
provision of
Section 75(4)

Sri Krishna
Timbers v.
State Tax
Officer [2023]
152
taxmann.com
173 (Madras)

The petitioner had filed replies on dated 17.12.2020 against the SCN and in conclusion they requested for a personal hearing prior to finalization of
the proceedings. This request was totally ignored by the assessing officer who has instead proceeded to pass the impugned order without hearing
the petitioner. The High Court observed that impugned orders were passed under the provisions of Section 74 of the Act and the officer is, in passing
the orders, bound by the general provisions relating to determination of tax as set out under Section 75 of the Act.
The High Court set aside the impugned orders of assessment and the assessment to be carried out after providing an opportunity of
hearing.

4

Section
67

Onus is on the
Revenue to
prove that the
amount
collected
voluntarily
during search
was not in
violation of
Article 265 of
Constitution of
India

William E
Connor
Associates &
Sourcing (P.)
Ltd. v. Union of
India [2023] 152
taxmann.com
174 (Punjab &
Haryana)

The petitioner contended that a search was conducted on 23.12.2020 and 24.12.2020. In the said search, the petitioners were made to deposit an
amount of Rs.83,89,196/- on 06.01.2021, under protest and on the assurance that it would be reverted in the input tax credit of the petitioner-company.
The petitioners then requested the respondents to reinstate the aforementioned amount in their Input Tax Ledger by sending a letter. But the request
of the petitioners was not considered even though a period of two years had lapsed. The petitioners alleged that no proceedings under Section 74(1)
of the CGST Act had been initiated by the revenue, but still the input tax credit was not reverted in their ledger.
The High Court held that any amount deposited voluntarily by the petitioner during search would not amount to collection of tax under
Article 265 of the Constitution and an amount collected without authority of law, would not amount to collection of tax and the same would
amount to depriving a person of his property without any authority of law and would infringe his rights under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India as well. Since, the respondents failed to place any material on record to show that they got deposited amount of Rs.83,89,196/-
from the petitioners with any authority of law, therefore, the petition as allowed and a direction was given to the respondents to refund the amount of
Rs.83,89,196/- along with the interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition.
Cases Referred- Diwakar Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST and Anr. CWP No.23788 of 2021 decided on 14.03.2023, Modern
Insecticides Ltd and Anr. v. Commissioner, CGST and Anr. CWP No.8035 of 2021decided on 19.04.2023, Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence
Officer and others, 2022 SCC Online Del 4508, Union of India and others v. Bundl Technologies Pvt Ltd and others, ILR 2022 Karnataka 3077

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
129

Looking to the
peculiar
circumstances
penalty was
not leviable for
Expired Eway
Bill and High
Court
recognized
that Rule
138(10) when
provides for
extension of
eway bill also
mandates to
look at the
conduct of the
party for levy
of penalty

Progressive
Metals (P.) Ltd.
v. Deputy
Commissioner,
State Tax
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
158 (Calcutta)

Vehicle along with the goods entered the Durgapur industrial belt within the validity of the e-way bill. The vehicle was intercepted on 9th May, 2022
at 9:35 AM at Durgapur and the vehicle was detained along with the goods on the ground that the e-way bill had expired on 8th May, 2022 at 11:59
AM. The explanation given by the appellant was that it was a Sunday and the consignee had given instructions to unload the goods at a different
location within the same area and in this regard the appellant had produced e-mail sent by the consignee stating that they had given instructions
subsequently to unload the goods at a different location within the area to which the goods were sent as per the e-way bill.
The High Court observed that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of tax. In any event, in terms of rule 138 of the
WBGST Rules, if an e-way bill had expired, the transporter had 08 hours time to seek for extension of the time stipulated in the e-way bill. If that
allowance is given, at the time when the vehicle along with the goods were intercepted, it was delayed by about 01 hour and 35 minutes. The particular
details given in e-way bill will show that area Durgapur has also been mentioned. It is not disputed that vehicle was within the Durgapur industrial belt
though not at Panagarh. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any material produced
by the revenue to doubt the bona fides of the appellant, High Court held that penalty should not have been imposed in this case.
The revenue relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr. reported at [2006] 5 SCC 361
for the proposition that the intention of the authority committing such violation becomes immaterial when there is a contravention of the statutory
obligation.
The High Court observed that third proviso to Rule 138(10) states that the validity of e-way bill may be extended within 8 hours from the time of its
expiry. Thus, the rules give certain latitude and therefore, the conduct of the transporter was required to be examined bearing in mind that the rule
itself provides for extension of the validity period of the e-way bill and the transporter has been given a latitude of 8 hours to seek for such extension.
If that benefit was to be granted to the appellant, then the delay would be about 1 hour and 35 minutes. There is no other allegation against the
appellant. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court held that this was not a case, where
penalty that too 200% penalty should have been imposed.

2

Section
112

NonConstitution of
Tribunal

Essar Steel
Suppliers v.
Union of India
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
128 (Bombay)

n the instant case, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed to challenge an Order-in-Appeal dated 21 April, 2021 passed by
the Commissioner of Central Taxes, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raigarh. Against the said order, an appeal was provided under Section
112 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 to the Appellate Tribunal. However, till today, the Tribunal has not been set up.
The High Court relying upon its Judgement in Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors.) dated 8 February 2023 held that the
period of filing the Appeal will stand extended as indicated in Clause 4.2 of the Circular dated 18 March 2020 and impugned order will not
be given effect until two weeks after the period prescribed for filing an appeal as under Clause 4.2 of Circular dated 18 March 2020 is over

3

Section
129

High Court
Mandates levy
of penalty of
Rs 50000 for
generation of
new Eway Bill
without
extending the
validity of
previous
Eway Bill

Bitumix India
LLP v. Deputy
Commissioner
of Revenue,
State Tax.
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
122 (Calcutta)

The goods which were being transported by the appellants to Assam were covered by e-Way Bill which was valid upto 18th March, 2022. On account
of the breakdown of the vehicle the goods did not move outside the territory of the State of West Bengal and was stationed at Dankuni on 18.03.2022.
The consignee in the meantime had sold the goods which were in transit to another purchaser in Assam and the goods were transported by the same
vehicle after generating a new e-Way Bill on 22.03.2022. The vehicle was detained on 25.03.2022 and order of penalty has been passed on the
ground of first e-Way Bill on 18.03.2022 had not been renewed/extended by the appellants.
The High Court observed that it is not in dispute on the date and time and the goods were intercepted that was on 25.03.2022 the appellants had a
valid e-Way Bill. The only mistake committed by the appellants was of not renewing the e-Way Bill which expired on 18.03.2022. This in opinion of
the High Court should not have been done since the goods were sold in transit. Therefore, violation had been committed by the appellants but
the violation was not as grave enough to call for imposition of penalty at the rate of 200% as on the date when the vehicle was intercepted
the goods were covered by a valid e- Way Bill which satisfies the requirement under Section 129 of the Act. However, the High Court further
held that that the mistake committed by the appellants in not renewing the earlier e-Way Bill which expired on 18.03.2022 the appellants should be
put on terms and thus the order passed was modified with the direction to the appellants to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000/- which will include
both CGST and WBGST instead of 200% penalty as imposed by the authorities

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 29

Cancellation of
Registration
without
following
Principle of
Natural Justice
and illegalities
at assessment
stage cannot be
cured by
appellate stage

Ultra Steel Ward v.
State of Madhya
Pradesh [2023] 151
taxmann.com 285
(Madhya Pradesh

The High Court observed that the SCN did not contain sufficient reasons to enable petitioner to file a reply. By
saying that the registration has been obtained by fraud/wilful misstatement/suppression of facts, is not
sufficient. Such terms need to be supported by reasons and some fundamental supporting material as to why,
how and under what circumstances the registration was obtained. Further, SCN for rejection of application for
revocation of cancellation of registration referred to an application dated 11.02.2022 which was, in fact, a reply
to the SCN for cancellation of registration and, therefore, it appeared to the Court that Revenue has not even
cared to ensure that true facts are reflected from the SCN. The carelessness on the part of the Revenue was
referred to be palpable. The appellate authority while passing the appellate order brushed aside the cogent
ground of violation of principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem). Pertinently, the appellate authority
conducted a physical verification of the premises of assessee. Such physical verification at the appellate stage
in the opinion of the High Court could not validate the illegalities which had crept at the initial stage of show
cause notice.
The proceedings were held to be illegal and revenue was at liberty to proceed by issuing a fresh, proper and
lawful show cause notice to the petitioner-assessee, if they were so advised.

Mohinder Singh Gill and
another Vs. CEC and
others, (1978) 1 SCC 405;
Health Care Medical
Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MP
Public Health Services
Corpn. Ltd. and another,
2021 SCC OnLine MP
3389; Balaji Enterprises
Vs. Principal Additional
Director General, DGGSTI
and Others, 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 3201;

2

Section 83

Writ filed
without
exhausting
statutory
remedy and
delegation of
powers by
Commissioner

S. R. Traders v.
Additional Director
General [2023] 151
taxmann.com 286
(Kerala)

The High Court stated that the petitioner had approached the court without exhausting the statutory remedy
under Rule 159. It is well-settled that the writ jurisdiction was only to be exercised in extra-ordinary
circumstances.
The petitioner had further contended that only Commissioner was invested with the power to pass an order
under Section 83 but respondent stated that by notification, powers have been invested in the Additional
Director General. The High Court negated the contention and held that the respondent was competent to pass
order in view of express delegation of powers read with Sections 3 and 5 of the CGST Act.

M/s. Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and
others [AIR 2021 SC 2114]

3

Section 54

Refun cannot be
denied as
revenue
proposes to file
an appeal
against order of
the appellate
authority

Alex Tour and Travel
(P.) Ltd. v.
Asistant
Commissioner,
CGST [2023] 151
taxmann.com 331
(Delhi)

The refund due to the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the appellate authority was not granted on the
ground that the decision of the appellate authority was erroneous and Revenue proposes to file an appeal
against the said decision as and when an appellate tribunal is constituted. The assessing officer also insisted
to file fresh refund application.
The High Court directed to grant the refund and rejected the insistence of Revenue to file fresh refund
application since proceedings emanated from petitioner filing applications for refund which was culminated in
Orders-in-Appeals passed by the appellate authority. Revenue cannot ignore the orders passed by the
appellate authority mainly on the ground that it proposes to file an appeal. Further there was no order passed
by the Court, staying the effect of the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the appellate authority. The respondent was
also taking no steps for securing orders to that effect. In view of the above, the petition was held liable to be
allowed

-