Skip to content

Part-62-One Pager Snapshot to the Latest Cases

-Giving Date of Hearing before the due date of reply is incorrect
-Non-Appearance on the date of Hearing
-Petitioner cannot be left remediless as order of Cancellation of Registration not available on Portal
-Cash Credit Account cannot be attached for recovery of Liabilities
-Duty of taxpayer to verify Portal for receipt of notice and order

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
73

Giving Date
of Hearing
before the
due date of
reply is
incorrect

HT Media Ltd.
v. Union of India [2023] 153
taxmann.com 339 (Delhi)

The petitioner was to submit its reply by 1-9-2022 and was also informed of a personal hearing scheduled on 19-8-2022. High Court was
unable to appreciate the procedure of affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard prior to the expiry of the time afforded
to him for responding to the impugned show cause notice. It was observed that an opportunity to be heard is not required to be a mere
formality. It is to enable the noticee to canvas its case before the concerned officer. The purpose of eliciting a reply to the show-cause
notice is to enable the noticee to place his stand on record. Thus, it was apposite that noticee be permitted to file a reply prior to being
afforded a hearing. The impugned order was set aside and concerned officer was directed to consider the petitioner's response and pass
a fresh order after affording the petitioner due opportunity to be heard

2

Section
73 and
Section
74

NonAppearance
on the date
of Hearing

Tvl. RIDA Industries v.
Assistant Commissioner
(ST) [2023] 153
taxmann.com 338 (Madras)

The petitioner neither had asked for any personal hearing and made submission on merits, though without furnishing any details. The High
Court observed that the objection that petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing cannot be countenanced as the
petitioner had given a reply but failed to appear before the respondent in response to notice in DRC-01 issued under Rule 100 of
the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Taxes Rules, 2017 on 26-3-2021. In view of the above, there was no merit in the present writ
petition. Therefore, writ petition was held to be liable to be dismissed.

3

Section
29 and
Section
30

Petitioner
cannot be
left
remediless
as order of
Cancellation
of
Registration
not
available on
Portal

Ashok Kumar Jha v. Union
of India [2023] 153
taxmann.com 335
(Calcutta)

Order for cancellation of registration was not available on the portal and petitioner could not even file application for revocation against the
same during suspension. Further another downloaded copy from the official portal of the department reflected the status of the case in
question that it is at the stage of show-cause notice of cancellation for registration while the department Counsel produced a downloaded
copy from portal showing that registration of the petitioner had been cancelled. Department Counsel submitted that they have written to
GSTIN to ascertain as to for whose lapse and how it happened that the order of cancellation is not available in the portal.
The High Court observed that order of cancellation of registration of petitioner was neither available on the portal nor revenue was able to
hand over a copy of the same and nor petitioner produced hard copy of the same before the Court also. The Court was of the considered
view that petitioner cannot be let remediless for the fault in the system and petitioner can't be deprived of its right to make
application either cancellation for revocation or by filing appeal. Revenue was directed to hand over hard copy of the order in original
cancelling the petitioner's registration and petitioner can thereafter file application for revocation of the same basis upon aforesaid hard
copy to be supplied

4

Section
83

Cash Credit
Account
cannot be
attached for
recovery of
Liabilities

Anjani Cotton Industries v.
Principal Commissioner of
CGST [2023] 153
taxmann.com 334 (Gujarat)

The High Court stated that on more than one occasion, Court had deprecated the practice of the respondent authorities in seeking
to enforce tax liabilities by provisionally attaching cash credit account. The petitioner was accorded ad-interim relief till the returnable
date of notice.
Cases Referred- Manish Scrap Traders v. Principal Commissioner reported in (2022) GSTL, 482 (Guj), Vinodkumar Murlidhar
Chechani v. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (124), taxmann.com, 272 (Guj).

5

Section
169

Duty of
taxpayer to
verify Portal
for receipt of
notice and
order

Koduvayur Constructions
v. Assistant Commissioner
[2023] 153 taxmann.com
333 (Kerala)

The petitioner had been served with order dated 14-10-2022 on the GST portal, calling him to pay an amount of Rs. 19,22,566/-. It was
contended that there was no effective service of notice on petitioner by the respondents. The High Court observed that assessment
order was made available on the common portal and thus contention of the petitioner was untenable in view of the alternative
modes of service provided under Sec.169 (1) of the CGST Act and it was bounden duty of the petitioner to have verified its
common portal that is made available as per the provision