Skip to content

Snapshot-27-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Validity of Assessment order based on amount mentioned in Eway Bill
-Recovery of demand due to non-constitution of Tribunal
-Revocation of Cancelled Registration
-Provisional attachment ceases to be operative after expiry of one year



Case Subject





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

Jena Trading and
Co. v. CT and GST
Officer [2023] 150 339

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



Status of
Recovery of
demand on
account of nonconstitution of

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

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



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

[2023] 150 341
(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.



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

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

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