Status of Recovery of
demand on account of
PCPL and RK- JV v.
State of Bihar 
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.
Petitioner to avail
benefit of N.No.
Industry v. State of
Gujarat  150
In the instant case, registration of the petitioner was cancelled and appeal against the said order to be dismissed on the ground of
appeal being filed beyond the period of limitation.
The High Court observed that Notification No. 03/2023-Central tax indisputably apply to the facts of this case and the petitioner may
approach the competent authority to avail the benefit of the Notification and seek revocation of the cancellation of registration. The
petition was accordingly disposed of.
Exercise of Power
under Section 74 not
dependent on issue of
notice under Section 61
and can be exercised
Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v.
State of U.P 
The High Court did not accept the argument that unless deficiency in return is pointed out to the assesee, and an opportunity is given
to rectify such deficiency, that the department can proceed under Section 74 is not borne out from the statutory scheme and the
argument in that regard therefore, must fail. It was observed that the scrutiny proceedings of return as well as proceeding under
Section 74 are two separate and distinct exigencies and issuance of notice under Section 61(3), therefore, cannot be construed as a
condition precedent for initiation of action under Section 74 of the Act.
Therefore, the High Court held that merely because no notices were issued under Section 61 of the Act would not mean that issues
of classification or short payment of tax cannot be dealt with under Section 74 as exercise of such power is not dependent upon
issuance of notice under Section 61
Provisions of Section 83
cannot be deployed to
work against the
for several years
Nitesh Jain Mangal
Chand v. Senior
of Goods and
The issue before the High Court was whether Section 83 contemplates a continued attachment of bank accounts for several years
as has happened in the present case. Whether the proceedings may be kept pending endlessly such that attachments of bank
accounts traverse three to four years seamlessly. The High Court noted that the SCN had been issued only on 08.10.2022 in respect
of an inspection that had transpired in January, 2019.
The High Court thereafter seeing the time lines aforesaid observed that such timelines persuaded it to arrive at a conclusion that the
purpose of Section 83 which is stated to be 'provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases' cannot be deployed so as to
work against the assessee continuously for several years as has happened in the present case. It was further noticed that the order
is specifically based on the position that the inspection in this case was done in January, 2019 whereas the show-cause notice was
issued only in October, 2022. This delay of nearly four years in issuing show-cause notice cannot be a reason to continue an
attachment under Section 83 of the Act, which itself is provisional in nature. Undeniably, Section 83 must be resorted to in appropriate
cases, ensuring with equal vigour that the Department is proceeding in a timely manner, by issuing notice and finalizing proceedings
in a time bound fashion. Therefore, for the above reasons, the petitioner succeeded and writ petition was allowed
Shamim Akhtar v.
of GST Intelligence
(Punjab & Haryana)
The High Court observing the fact that the petitioner was accused for the commission of offences under CGST Act, which were triable
by the Magistrate and the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences was upto 5 years, which would be dependent on
the quantum of tax evasion. The petitioner was under custody since the last one year and trial was at the stage of pre-charge evidence,
hence, there was no likelihood of the trial concluding soon. Therefore, petitioner was granted bails stating that further incarceration
of the petitioner in the aforesaid facts and circumstances would serve no useful purpose