S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
13(8)(b)
of IGST
Act, 2017

provisions relating
to Place of Supply
of services by an
intermediary

Dharmendra M. Jani
v. UOI [2023] 151
taxmann.com 91
(Bombay

The High Court following its earlier judgement held that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid
and constitutional, provided that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) are confined in their operation to the provisions of
IGST Act only and the same cannot be made applicable for levy of tax on services under the CGST and MGST Acts.
Case Referred- Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India [2023] 149 taxmann.com 317/ 97 GST 630 / 2023 (72) G.S.T.L 448 (Bom.)

2

Section
2(30) and
Section
15

Whether supply
under two
contracts for
which separate
invoices were
issued by
applicant to his
recipient, under a
single contract
agreement are
independent from
each other or part
of composite
supply

PES Engineers (P.)
Ltd. [2023] 151
taxmann.com 87
(AAR- TELANGANA)

The petitioner entered into two separate agreements and the title to both the agreements was as follows-
“Whereas the Employer desires to engage the Contractor to design, manufacture, test, deliver, install, complete and commission and
conduct guarantee tests of certain Facilities, viz., Fuel Gas www.taxmann.com 13 Desulphurisation (FGD) System Package for Singareni
TPS, Stage-1 (2 X 600 MW) under Bidding Document No.CW-CM-11017-C-O-M-003 (“the Facilities”) and the Contractor have agreed to
such engagement upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter appearing.”
The scope of First Contract was sale of goods ex-manufacture/exworks and according to the applicant, it was a contract for pure sale of
goods. The scope of work under the Second Contract was “Inland Transportation of the main equipment, inland transit insurance, unloading
at site, storage, erection, civil works, Safety aspects / Compliance to Safety Rules and other services insurance covers other than inland
transit insurance, testing, commission and conducting guarantee tests”. And according to the applicant, the supply under Second Contract
was Works Contract Service. Question before the authority was whether these are two supplies or are they part of composite supply.
The authority held that the scope of works/supply undertaken under individual contracts are entirely independent and specific to that contract
and are not associated with other contract. The supply undertaken under the first contact terminated with making goods available ex-works
and loading them on to the mode of transport. The moment the applicant raised tax invoice for the supply of goods and endorsed the
despatch documents, the title of the goods passed on to M/s SCCL. The supply under the second contact commenced with service of
transportation of the said goods supplied under first contract. Since the transfer of property in the goods supplied under first contract was
not taking place during the execution of the Works Contract under second contract, the value thereof cannot be included in the Works
Contract. Thus, supply/ service under second contract commenced only on completion of all the milestone activities of first contract. Thus,
it was held that it was evident that each Contract was independent and every milestone supply made from the individual contract was, an
independent transaction. It was further held that when both the contracts are viewed as separate contracts, notwithstanding that both were
mentioned in single Conditions of Contract, tax liability on supply of goods, as per First Contract, will arise as specified in Section 12(2)(a)
of CGST Act, 2017 i.e. at the time, which is the date of issue of invoice by the taxpayer or the last date on which he is required, under
section 31, to issue the invoice.
Cases Referred- Commissioner Vs. Essar Projects (India) Ltd., 2014(36) STRJ 153(SC), State of Karnataka Vs. Pro. Lab, 2015 (321)
EIT 366(SC), State of Madras Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Company (Madras) Ltd., [1958] 9 STC353(SC); C.C.E. & S.T., AHMEDABADIII Versus KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD., 2021 (48) G.S.T.L. 354 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

3

Section
107

Availability of
Alternative
remedy

Thiruchy Royal
Steels v. Deputy
State Tax Officer
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 86
(Madras)

The High Court held that since writ petition involved disputed questions of facts, which could not be gone into in the Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the alternate remedy is available under Section 107 of the GST Act, therefore Writ
Petition stands disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
54

Interest payable
on refund in
case of
inordinate delay

Sesame Workshop
Initiatives (India) (P.)
Ltd. v. Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 52
(Delhi)

By an order dated 04.10.2021, a refund of Rs. 1,12,98,201/-was sanctioned. The refund of SGST of Rs. 44,60,713/- was processed and
disbursed on 09.03.2022. However, refund of CGST and IGST was not processed despite refund order dated 04.10.2021, sanctioning the
same. A letter informing the petitioner of disbursal of the said amount was issued on 23.04.2023 and the said amount was credited into the
petitioner's bank account on 27.04.2023. The issue involved in the present case is now confined to the interest payable on the said amount.
The High Court held that undisputedly, if a person is denied of the payment due to him, he is required to be compensated. In Sandvik Asia
Limited v. Commissioner of Income tax I, Pune: (2006) 2 SCC 508 the Supreme Court had endorsed the principle that interest would be
payable even in cases where there was no statutory provision for payment of interest. Therefore, it was held that petitioner was entitled to
interest from 01.11.2021 (considering an allowance of twenty-six days for the respondents to comply with the refund sanction order dated
04.10.2021) till the date of payment, that is, 27.04.2023 at 6% per annum.
Cases Referred- Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.: (2014) 6 SCC 335; Sandvik Asia Limited v. Commissioner of Income tax I,
Pune: (2006) 2 SCC 508

2

Section
69 and
Section
132

Grant of Bail

Amrinder Singh v.
State of Punjab
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 51
(Punjab & Haryana

The High Court observed that broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts), in economic offences
involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple
test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail
even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant.
Therefore, in view of the above, bail was granted in view of the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2021 and was is in custody
ever since in a case where the maximum sentence that could be awarded was 05 years, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not
required, more so when his co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2022.

3

Section
54

Documents
signed in the
manner
prescribed in
Rule 26 but not
physically
signed as
required in the
circular may be
an irregularity
but not an
illegality

Medicamen Biotech
Ltd.
v.
Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 408
(Rajasthan)

The appellate authority declared the sanction for refund as illegal as declarations were not signed in physical mode before it could be
scanned and uploaded through electronic mode. For this purpose, Appellate Authority relied upon Circular dated 18.11.2019.
The High Court observed that a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Rule 26 and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules of 2017 does not
mandate that even after having authenticated a document in the manner prescribed under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules of 2017, insofar as
declarations (as sought in the present case) are concerned, they are also required to be signed in physical mode before being scanned
and uploaded through electronic submission along with the application for refund. However, by administrative instructions, i.e. Circular
dated 18.11.2019, such requirement was added. Though non-submission of refund application along with the declarations as required
under the law would certainly be illegal and that may, in appropriate case, entail rejection of the application, however, if declarations, as in
the present case, are digitally authenticated in the manner prescribed under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules of 2017, non-submission of
physically signed and scanned declarations may only be an irregularity, but not an illegality. Therefore, High Court held that impugned order
passed by the Appellate Authority upsetting the order of refund passed by the Adjudicating Authority was not sustainable in law

4

Section
107

Availability of
alternative
remedy

Kramski Stamping
and Molding Indis
(P.) Ltd. v. State Tax
Officer (Int.) [2023]
151 taxmann.com 85
(Madras)

In the instant case, detention was goods was made for failure to carry E-Invoice during the movement of the goods. The High court held
that they cannot entertain this writ petition as principles of natural justice have not been violated since the impugned order was only passed
after giving the petitioner time to submit the reply and after consideration of reply filed. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to
file statutory appeal, if aggrieved by the impugned order before the statutory Appellate Authority as per the provisions of Section 107 of
G.S.T. Act, 2017 and a direction was issued to the statutory Appellate Authority as and when an appeal was filed by the petitioner to
consider the petitioner's application seeking for provisional release under Section 129(1) of the G.S.T Act, 2017

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
15

Manufacture and supply
Precast Manholes and Rises
ON e Cement, & Steel (TMT
& Bars) supplied by the
recipient is supply of goods.
The activity does not fall
within the scope of Job Work.
The price to be charged from
the recipient i.e. M/s Larsen
& Toubro Ltd by the applicant
for supply of precast manhole
shall not the be transaction
value in terms of Section
15(1)
The material which are to be
made available free of cost
by the recipient and are not
within the scope of applicant
for supply of precast manhole
shall form part of the
transaction value for the
purpose of levy of ta

Natani Precast [2023]
151 taxmann.com 55
(AAR- RAJASTHAN)

Applicant had received request for quotation for supply of precast Manholes by M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Two basic
ingredients i.e Cement, & Steel (TMT & Bars), used for manufacturing of precast manholes were to be supplied by M/s
Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Authority held that applicant had intention to manufacture and supply Precast Manholes and Rises and manufacturing
process submitted by the applicant itself reflected that the applicant was engaged in manufacturing of goods. Thus, the
instant transaction of supply of Precast Manholes and Rises was of supply of goods and not a supply of services.
Authority further held that since the applicant was involved in the manufacturing of Manholes and Rises and it could not be
termed as any treatment or process on the goods belonging to the recipient i.e. service of job work, even if inputs were
being supplied free of cost and these inputs wholly were being used in manufacturing of resultant goods and termed as
supply of goods not services. The authority further distinguished Circular No. 47/21/2018-GST, dated 8-6-2018 as it
pertained to an act of modification and treatment on a good wherein in the instant case of applicant, new goods were
manufactured from raw materials and not the work done on the goods belongs to recipient.
Authority further observed that since applicant is to manufacture and supply Precast Manholes and Rises as per specific
order from recipient but cement and iron was to be supplied by recipient on free of cost whereas if recipient were not to
supply main ingredients then it would have been borne by applicant. Thus, Free of cost supply of main ingredients from
recipient was nothing but mutual understanding between both parties which do not debar them from the essence of supply
of goods and consideration received under GST. Thus, it was held that by such type of adjustments applicant will receive
the consideration in barter. I.e. one consideration in the shape of price as per agreement and second in the shape of free
issue of essential inputs like cement and steels. Hence price to be charged from recipient i.e. M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd by
the applicant for supply of precast manhole shall not be transaction value in terms of Section 15(1) & 15(2) of the CGST /
RGST Act 2017 & material which are to be made available free of cost by the recipient and are not within the scope of
applicant for supply of precast manhole shall form part of the transaction value for the purpose of levy of tax

2

HSN
9992

Supply of the aircraft type
rating training services to
commercial pilots is not
exempt from levy of GST

CAE Flight Training
(India) (P.) Ltd [2023]
151 taxmann.com 54
(AAR- KARNATAKA)

The supply of the aircraft type rating training services to commercial pilots, in accordance with the training curriculum
approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation for obtaining the extension of aircraft type ratings on their existing
licenses, do not result into a qualification as the applicant imparts training and issues only course completion certificate and
thus the impugned services are not covered under SI. No. 66 (a) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated
28.6.2017 and thus are exigible to GST under the CGST/ KGST Act 2017

3

Section
29 and
Section
30

Since alternative remedy was
available therefore the High
Court relegated the matter to
concerned authority

Syed Wasim Rohman
v. State of Assam
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 53
(Gauhati)

The petitioner approached the High Court for revocation of cancellation of registration. The High Court observed that
Section 30 of Assam GST Act, 2017 provides alternative and efficacious remedy to the petitioner to apply for revocation of
the cancellation of the registration and thus the Court was of the considered opinion that the petitioner be relegated to the
concerned designated authority for availing remedy as prescribed under the provision of section 30(1) of the Assam GST
Act, 2017

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
129 and
Section
107

Once order is
stayed, officer
can release the
goods subject to
such other
safeguards that
may be imposed
by the appellate
authorities
under the
respective Acts

Haresh Kumar
v. Assistant
Commissioner
(ST) [2023] 150
taxmann.com
380 (Madras)

An order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 was issued. Petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate
Authority and paid 25% of the disputed penalty, whereas, respondents had imposed penalty equivalent to 100% value of goods that was detained.
It was contended that once there was a pre-deposit of the amount in terms of Section 107(6), the respondents ought to have released the goods.
The High Court held that once order is stayed, the respondents can release the goods subject to such other safeguards that may be imposed by
the appellate authorities under the respective Acts. The very purpose of fixing the mandatory pre-deposit is to do away with the procedure of
granting stay after hearing, which was delaying the disposal of the appeal earlier. The Officer who detained the goods becomes functus officio,
once there is a mandatory pre-deposit, the order has no force and all further recovery proceedings will be subject to the final outcome of the
appeal. The High court directed the petitioner to deposit the maximum penalty of 200% of the tax to safeguard the interest of the revenue.
Cases Referred- TCI Freight v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2022] 143 taxmann.com 115 (Madras

2

Section
73 and
Section 6

Second Officer
cannot initiate
proceedings by
issuing DRC-01
and passing the
order on the
same matter
which is already
seized by the
first officer by
issuing DRC01A

SSB Petro
Products v.
Assistant
Commissioner,
State Tax
[2023] 150
taxmann.com
381 (Calcutta)

In the instant case, issue before the High Court was whether an officer (referred as “second officer”) could have initiated fresh proceedings by
issue of DRC-01 and passing order thereafter, when another officer (referred as “first officer”) was seized of the matter and intimation in Form
GSTDRC-01A dated 05.03.2021 was issued to which the appellants had submitted their reply dated 08.03.2021 and the said reply was neither
considered nor rejected and the matter was kept pending. The appellant further stated that he was not aware of the said notice for being uploaded
in the portal and they came to know of the same only after the sum of Rs. 1,84,930/- was paid from their electronic credit ledger and immediately
thereafter, the appellants applied for a copy of the order and thereafter preferred the appeal but by then the period of limitation for filing the appeal
had expired.
The High Court observed that the option which was available to the first officer was to consider the representation/reply and if not satisfied, could
have proceeded to issue SCN under Section 74(1) of the Act which option the first officer did not exercise and the matter was left to linger. Thus,
the preliminary proceedings could not have been initiated by the second officer when proceeding initiated by the first officer for the very same
amount on the very same allegation was not taken to the logical end. It was further observed that when the statutory appeal for the order passed
by the second officer was pending before the appellate authority, the first officer had dropped the proceedings. From the final report of the first
officer, it was seen that the proceedings were closed by the first officer only on 24.01.2023. Thus, for all purposes, it was deemed that the
proceedings initiated by the first officer pursuant to intimation dated 05.03.2021 had attained finality and on the said date, the appeal as against
the proceedings initiated by the second officer was already pending before the appellate authority.
Thus, the High Court considering peculiar facts and circumstances held that the appeal should not be treated to be as time barred

3

Section
29 and
Section
30

Cancellation of
registration of
the recipient for
wrongful
availment of ITC
as the supplier
did not deposit
the tax

Electro Steel
Corporation v.
State of
Jharkhand
[2023] 150
taxmann.com
407
(Jharkhand)

The registration of the petitioner was cancelled on account of the allegation that they have availed excess credit than the ITC accrued in GSTR2A/2B in violation of Provisions of Section 16. It was contended by the petitioner that they had duly paid the amount to the supplier but supplier
neither filed the return and nor filed GSTR-1.
The High Court observed that the claim of the petitioner than they have paid the entire amount to the supplier neds verification that whether at all
the entire amount being paid by them was towards the invoices raised by the supplier. The High Court directed that in case the verification exercise
reveals that even after due payment to the supplier, the same has not been deposited, it would be open for the competent authority to take
appropriate decision

S.No

Section

CAse Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
15 and
Rule 32

Activity of Gold Jewellery
being melted into gold lumps,
not eligible to avail the
benefits of Rule 32(5) of
CGST Rules, 2017

White Gold
Bullion (P.) Ltd.
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 45
(AAR -
KARNATAKA)

Authority held that when applicant melts the gold jewellery into gold lumps, the nature of goods changes in as much as the
characteristics of the articles and the classification changes. Since the processing done by the applicant changes the nature of
goods, they are not eligible to avail the benefits of Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules, 2017. The HSN Code for Old Gold Jewellery is 7113
and after melting into gold lumps or irregular shapes of gold the HSN Code is 7108.

2

Section
140

Unadjusted VAT TDS
allowed to be carried forward
to the GST regime

P & C Projects
(P.) Ltd. v.
Assistant
Commissioner of
(ST)(FAC) [2023]
151 axmann.com
46 (Madras)

The High Court not observed that the order was a non-speaking order as no reasons had been given for rejecting the petitioner's
request for carrying forward of the unadjusted VAT TDS to the GST regime that too when the law was well settled by the decision
of the learned Single Judge, which also had attained finality as no Appeal had been filed against the said order as fairly admitted
by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The impugned order was thus quashed.
Case Referred- M/s. DMR Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Rasipuram, Namakkal
District reported [2021] 125 taxmann.com 252 (Mad.)/[2021] 86 GST 82 (Mad.)

3

Section
129

Transporter can seek release
of the conveyance on deposit
of specified amount under
Section 129(6

Lodha Roadways
v. Deputy State
Tax Officer,
Inspection Cell-4
[2023] 150
taxmann.com
375 (Madras)

The High Court held that Section 129 provides for various situations where release of conveyance and goods may be sought and
Section 129(6) being specific to a transporter, thus enables a transporter to seek release of the conveyance in the circumstances
mentioned therein, being, upon payment of penalty under sub-section (3) or a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh, whichever is less.-

4

Section 5
of IGST
Act, 2017

Refund of IGST paid on
Ocean Freight

Etc Agro
Processing
(India) (P.) Ltd.
v. UOI [2023] 150
taxmann.com
376 (Gujarat)

The High Court held that since Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017- IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 has already been declared
ultravires by Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore amount of Rs. 6,98,00,420/- paid by the petitioner as IGST on ocean freight of goods
imported during July, 2017 to December, 2019 be refunded alongwith the statutory rate of interest.
Case Referred- ADI Enterprises v. UOI being Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 10479
of 2019

5

Section
129 and
Section
130

Exercise of powers under
Section 129 and thereafter
switching over to Section 130
and passing order
thereunder without availing
the petitioner the benefits of
release of goods under
Section 129

Rohit Company
v. Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com
379 (Gujarat)

The petitioner contended that when the goods were in transit, the authorities intercepted the goods and confiscated them. In other
words, authorities sought to derive their powers for taking possession of the goods of the petitioner which were in transit under
Section 129 of the Act. It was submitted that the said Section begins with non obstante clause and it is a provision independent of
Section 130. In that context, it was submitted that exercise of powers under Section 129 and thereafter switching over to Section
130 and passing order thereunder without availing the petitioner the benefits of release of the goods under Section 129, could be
said to be without jurisdiction.
The High Court, by way of interim relief, directed that the goods of the petitioner as well as vehicle shall be released upon
satisfaction of conditions and admitted the petition and also directed the same to be listed with Special Civil Application No.8353
of 2022

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
74

SCN requiring the assessee
to appear for personal
hearing on the “date, time
and venue, if mentioned in
table below", but no date,
time and venue for personal
hearing shown in the notice

Concord Tieup
(P.) Ltd. v. State
of Madhya
Pradesh [2023]
151
taxmann.com 41
(Madhya
Pradesh)

The petitioner contended that SCN under Section 74 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 held that 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 was sufficient to infer that
no personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 24.08.2022. The High Court further
observed that it is well settled that when due opportunity of hearing, as required under the law, has not been afforded and principle
of natural justice has not been followed, then the question of availability of alternative remedy does not come in the way for
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order was held to be not sustainable and was
quashed and remitted back.
Case Referred- Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 (59) G.S.T.L. 394 (All.)

2

Section 5
of IGST
Act, 2017

Refund of IGST paid on
Ocean Freight

Krishak Bharati
Co-operative Ltd.
v. Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 42
(Gujarat)

The High Court held that since Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017- IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 has already been declared
ultravires by Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore amount of Rs. 6,98,00,420/- paid by the petitioner as IGST on ocean freight of goods
imported during July, 2017 to December, 2019 be refunded alongwith the statutory rate of interest.
Case Referred- ADI Enterprises v. UOI being Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 10479
of 2019

3

Section
129 and
Section
130

Order being passed in the
name of driver does not
preclude cosignor or the
consignee to challenge the
confiscation of goods along
with supporting documents
evidencing their ownership

Delhivery
Limited
v. State of U.P.
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 43
(Allahabad)

It was contended by the petitioner that since the impugned order was passed against the driver, it would not be open for the
cosignor or the consignee to challenge such order before the appropriate forum. It is otherwise not disputed that the impugned
order is appealable under the statute.
The High Court observed that the cosignor or the consignee were always at liberty to challenge the confiscation of goods along
with the supporting documents evidencing their ownership and merely because the order had been addressed to the driver of the
vehicle would not be to the prejudice of the rights and contentions of the cosigner or the consignee and thus court was not inclined
to entertain the challenge to the order impugned directly in the writ petition.

4

Section
69 and
Section
132

Grant of Bail on deposit of
amount and execution of
personal bond

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 44
(Rajasthan)
Gaurav Kakkar
v. Directorate
General of Gst
Intelligence,
Jaipur Zonal Unit

The High Court observed that petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2022 and since then, he was in judicial custody. The challan of the
case had already been presented and no investigation was pending.
Taking into consideration the investigation and evidence so collected, in the opinion of the High Court, the trial would take
considerable time and it may happen, if denied bail, the judicial custody be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment
which was for five years. The High Court granted bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C with a condition to deposit
Rs. 3 crores by the petitioner before the respondent Department under protest and execution of a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
Case Referred- Vinay Kant Ameta v. UOI (Criminal Appeal No. 60/2022) decided on 10.01.2022 (SC

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