Skip to content

Snapshot-15-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Cancellation of Registration without following principle of Natural Justice
-Writ Petition not maintainable as matter pending before the Proper Officer
-Posting of Order with incorrect and incomplete address is not a valid delivery

S.No

Section 

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section
29

Cancellation
of
Registration
without
following
principle of
Natural
Justice

Precitech
Engineers v. State
of U.P.
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 214
(Allahabad)

Writ Petition was allowed considering the fact that the order impugned cancelling the registration was prima facie
without application of mind and the case was thus squarely covered by the judgment in the case of M/s Chandra
Sain (Supra) and the issue of non-fixation of time and date is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the
case of M/s Jaiprakash Thekedar (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed on both the counts.

Mr. Chandra Sain v. U.O.I. ;
[2022 U.P.T.C. (VOL.112) -
1861].
M/s Jaiprakash
Thekedar v. Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes and
another; [(2023 U.P.T.C.
(VOL.113) - 162]

2

Section
69 and
Section
132

Release on
Bail

Suresh Jajra
v. Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 213
(Rajasthan)

It was submitted by the petitioner that he is neither owner of Ayodhya Food Products or nor partner of the firm
and the petitioner and other co-accused had retracted the statement given by under Section 70 of GST Act. It
was further submitted that maximum punishment in this case is five years and conclusion of trial may take long
time and that similarly situated co-accused were enlarged on bail by the Court and by Co-ordinate Bench of the
Court.
The High Court considering the contentions put-forth and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case deemed it just and proper to enlarge the
petitioner on bail

-

3

Section
74

Writ Petition
not
maintainable
as matter
pending
before the
assessing
officer

North End Foods
Marketing (P.) Ltd.
v.
State of U.P
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 212
(Allahabad)

The petitioner was directed that all issues raised were still open to be agitated before the Assessing Officer and
therefore the High Court do not find any good ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed
of with the observation that all the issues raised by the petitioner, especially the issue with regard to the
jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed under Section 74, shall be raised before the Assessing Officer in
reply to the show cause notice, the subject matter of challenge herein

-

4

Section
169

Writ Petition
not
maintainable
as matter
pending
before the
assessing
officer

Global
Construction
v.
Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 204
(Jharkhand)

The High Court observed that firstly certified copy of impugned order was provided to the appellant on 19th
December 2020 which means that by that time the relaxation of limitation period as per the directions of the Apex
Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 03/2020 had commenced due to the COVID lockdown and secondly,
the booking journal or the track consignment report of the speed post does not contain the complete address of
the petitioner.
The High Court observed that it is apparent that notices were issued on incorrect or inadequate address. The
presumption of proof of service of notice is a rebuttable piece of evidence and the track consignment report
having an incomplete address of the petitioner, valid service of notice of the order in original cannot be presumed.
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act as quoted at paragraph-6 of the impugned appellate order also provides
that service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting it be registered post.
Thus, it was held that petitioners have therefore rightly contended that it could not have approached the appellate
authority earlier and thus the grounds of rejection of the memo of appeal was held to be not tenable on facts.

-