S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
74 and
Section
75

A vague notice is
violation of
provision in
Section 75 since
the Statute itself
prescribes for
affording
reasonable
opportunity and
any deficiency in
that regard vitiates
the result

Durge Metals v.
Appellate
Authority and
Joint
Commissioner
State Tax [2023]
150 taxmann.com
333 (Madhya
Pradesh)

The petitioner contended that SCN was vague to the extent of not communicating the relevant information and material thereby disabling the
petitioner to respond to the same, and therefore, all consequential actions of passing of order and dismissal of appeal are vitiated in law.
The High Court observed that even though the petitioner had not specifically raised the said ground before the appellate authority but the
fact remained that mandatory provisions of Section 74 of GST Act make it incumbent upon the Revenue to ensure the show cause notice to
be speaking enough to enable the assessee to respond to the same. However, SCN revealed that it neither contained the material and
information nor the statement containing details of ITC transaction under question. It was further observed that Section 75 of GST Act is a
complete Code which prescribes for various stages for determination of wrongful utilization of ITC while following the concept of reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since the Statute itself prescribes for affording reasonable opportunity, it is incumbent upon the
Revenue to afford the same and any deficiency in that regard vitiates the result. The High Court held that it had no manner of doubt that the
very initiation of the proceedings by way of show cause notice was vitiated for the same being vague.
Case Referred- Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises v. The State of Jharkhand & ors) including WP(T) No.745/2021 14thth, September 2022

2

Section
107

No power to
entertain the
application for
condonation of
delay beyond
permissible p

Farhat
Construction
v. State of
Chhattisgarh
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 334
(Chhattisgarh)

The High Court held that there is no power to entertain the application for condonation of delay beyond permissible period provided under
the Act of 2017. The High Court further held that petitioner has wrongly contended that the period of delay has wrongly been assessed by
Appellate Authority in the light of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Re-cognizance for extension of limitation (Supra), the matter
be remitted back to the First Appellate Authority as even after excluding period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, filing of an appeal would
not come within extended period of limitation as ordered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, said exercise would serve no purpose
Cases Referred-Nandan Steels And Power Limited Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in W.A. No. 104 of 2021, decided on 10.08.2022

3

Section
174

GAIL cannot be
asked to pay
amount to
DGGSTI since
GAIL did not owe
any amount to
other party

Gail (India) Ltd.
v. Directorate
General of GST
Intelligence [2023]
150 taxmann.com
335 (Delhi)

Petition was filed against the order dated 08.03.2018 issued by DGGSTI under Section 87(b) of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 read
with Section 174(2)(e) of the 'CGST Act' calling upon GAIL to pay a sum of Rs. 13,13,07,485/- which, DGGSTI believes, is owed by GAIL to
the other party.
The High Court held that there was no material to show that any such amount was due and payable by GAIL. GAIL and DGGSTI are adidem that the only amount that GAIL was required to pay was approximately Rs. 6.54 crores after the other party has issued the invoice of
Rs. 1.01 crores. In view of the above, the impugned order was set aside and GAIL was however restrained from making any payments to
other party for a period of four weeks

4

Section
73 ad
Section
74

Ex-Parte order
passed in violation
of principle of
natural justice is
illegal and is a fit
case for
interference by the
High Court

Lucky Traders v.
State of Bihar
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 338
(Patna

In the instant case, ITC claim of the petitioner was rejected and tax, including interest and penalty, had been imposed, without providing any
further notice to the petitioner..
The High Court observed that notwithstanding the statutory remedy, it was not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, the order was bad
in law on account of the two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was
afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable
from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. The matter was thus remanded back