S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 29

Cancellation of
Registration
without
following
Principle of
Natural Justice
and illegalities
at assessment
stage cannot be
cured by
appellate stage

Ultra Steel Ward v.
State of Madhya
Pradesh [2023] 151
taxmann.com 285
(Madhya Pradesh

The High Court observed that the SCN did not contain sufficient reasons to enable petitioner to file a reply. By
saying that the registration has been obtained by fraud/wilful misstatement/suppression of facts, is not
sufficient. Such terms need to be supported by reasons and some fundamental supporting material as to why,
how and under what circumstances the registration was obtained. Further, SCN for rejection of application for
revocation of cancellation of registration referred to an application dated 11.02.2022 which was, in fact, a reply
to the SCN for cancellation of registration and, therefore, it appeared to the Court that Revenue has not even
cared to ensure that true facts are reflected from the SCN. The carelessness on the part of the Revenue was
referred to be palpable. The appellate authority while passing the appellate order brushed aside the cogent
ground of violation of principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem). Pertinently, the appellate authority
conducted a physical verification of the premises of assessee. Such physical verification at the appellate stage
in the opinion of the High Court could not validate the illegalities which had crept at the initial stage of show
cause notice.
The proceedings were held to be illegal and revenue was at liberty to proceed by issuing a fresh, proper and
lawful show cause notice to the petitioner-assessee, if they were so advised.

Mohinder Singh Gill and
another Vs. CEC and
others, (1978) 1 SCC 405;
Health Care Medical
Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MP
Public Health Services
Corpn. Ltd. and another,
2021 SCC OnLine MP
3389; Balaji Enterprises
Vs. Principal Additional
Director General, DGGSTI
and Others, 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 3201;

2

Section 83

Writ filed
without
exhausting
statutory
remedy and
delegation of
powers by
Commissioner

S. R. Traders v.
Additional Director
General [2023] 151
taxmann.com 286
(Kerala)

The High Court stated that the petitioner had approached the court without exhausting the statutory remedy
under Rule 159. It is well-settled that the writ jurisdiction was only to be exercised in extra-ordinary
circumstances.
The petitioner had further contended that only Commissioner was invested with the power to pass an order
under Section 83 but respondent stated that by notification, powers have been invested in the Additional
Director General. The High Court negated the contention and held that the respondent was competent to pass
order in view of express delegation of powers read with Sections 3 and 5 of the CGST Act.

M/s. Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and
others [AIR 2021 SC 2114]

3

Section 54

Refun cannot be
denied as
revenue
proposes to file
an appeal
against order of
the appellate
authority

Alex Tour and Travel
(P.) Ltd. v.
Asistant
Commissioner,
CGST [2023] 151
taxmann.com 331
(Delhi)

The refund due to the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the appellate authority was not granted on the
ground that the decision of the appellate authority was erroneous and Revenue proposes to file an appeal
against the said decision as and when an appellate tribunal is constituted. The assessing officer also insisted
to file fresh refund application.
The High Court directed to grant the refund and rejected the insistence of Revenue to file fresh refund
application since proceedings emanated from petitioner filing applications for refund which was culminated in
Orders-in-Appeals passed by the appellate authority. Revenue cannot ignore the orders passed by the
appellate authority mainly on the ground that it proposes to file an appeal. Further there was no order passed
by the Court, staying the effect of the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the appellate authority. The respondent was
also taking no steps for securing orders to that effect. In view of the above, the petition was held liable to be
allowed

-

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
73 and
Rule 142

Service of
Notice on Email
ID not a valid
service of Notice

Shri Shyam baba
Edible Oils v. Chief
Commissioner
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 139
(Madhya Pradesh)

In the instant case, the service of show cause notice/order was challenged as the same was communicated through Email.
The High Court observed that a bare perusal of Rule 142 of CGST Rules, 2017 reveals that the only mode prescribed for communicating
the show-cause notice/order was by way of uploading the same on website of the revenue. The State in its reply had provided no material
to show that show-cause notice/order No.12 dated 10.06.2020 was uploaded on website of revenue. In fact, learned AAG conceded that
the show-cause notice/order was communicated to petitioner by Email and was not uploaded on website of the revenue. Therefore, the
High Court held that statutory procedure prescribed for communicating show-cause notice/order under Rule 142(1) of CGST Act was not
followed by the revenue, and thus the impugned order was struck down. The revenue was allowed the liberty to follow the procedure
prescribed under Rule 142 of CGST Act by communicating the show-cause notice to the petitioner by appropriate mode thereafter to
proceed in accordance with law.

2

Section
29 and
section
30

Order passed
without giving
sufficient time to
the petitioner
and without
considering
reply of the
petitioner set
aside

Pakiza Steel LLP v.
Union of India [2023]
151 taxmann.com
113 (Bombay

In the instant case, Petitioner had received a show cause notice on 5th September 2022 to show cause by 6 September 2022 that why the
registration should not be cancelled and by the said order, registration of the Petitioner was suspended with effect from that date. The
petitioner contended that although he did not have time to adequately prepare yet he submitted the reply and without considering the reply,
the final order came to be passed. It was further contended that although the impugned order referred to the reply, but it did consider the
same and the Authority proceeded to pass an order on entirely different ground on which the Petitioner did not get opportunity
The High Court observing that the impugned order had been passed in above circumstances directed that the petitioner be given an
opportunity before the final order of cancellation of registration is made However, they did not restore registration and registration continued
to remain suspended as per show cause notice.

3

Section
61 and
Section
74

Exercise of
Power under
Section 74 not
dependent on
issue of notice
under Section
61 and can be
exercised
independently

Naarjuna Agro
Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v.
State of U.P. [2023]
151 taxmann.com
112 (Allahabad)

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. The High Court further observed that the judgement in the matter of M/s. Vadivel Pyrotech
Private Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner, (2022 U.P.T.C. 1769) was limited to the facts of that case and do not lay down any proposition
of law which restricts the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 74 upon issuance of notice under Section 61(3) 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

4

Section
83

Cash-credit
facility is not a
debt and
therefore, not
attachable.

Naarjuna Agro
Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v.
State of U.P. [2023]
151 taxmann.com
112 (Allahabad)

The High Court held that cash-credit facility is not a debt and therefore, it cannot be made attachable and the Court was bound by the
above-stated precedent but cash-credit facility is not a debt and therefore, it cannot be made attachable. This Court is bound by the abovestated precedent; however Rule 159 clearly gives adequate power to the petitioner to file objection for releasing the bank account or, in the
instant case cash-credit facility, therefore when there was an efficacious relief in the statute itself, therefore, the High Court was of the view
that the petitioner should adopt such efficacious relief and Court was not inclined to afford any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Cases Referred- Jugal Kishore Das v. Union of India reported in 2013 SCC Online Cal 19941, Radha Krishan Industries v. State of
Himachal Pradesh reported in 2021 (48) GSTL 113 (SC), Valerius Industries v. Union of India reported in 2019 (30) GSTL 15 (Guj),
Mardia Chemicals Limited v. Union of India [2004] 4 SCC 311, Overseas Bank v. Ashok Shaw Mill reported in [2009] 8 SCC 366.

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
15

Manufacture and supply
Precast Manholes and Rises
ON e Cement, & Steel (TMT
& Bars) supplied by the
recipient is supply of goods.
The activity does not fall
within the scope of Job Work.
The price to be charged from
the recipient i.e. M/s Larsen
& Toubro Ltd by the applicant
for supply of precast manhole
shall not the be transaction
value in terms of Section
15(1)
The material which are to be
made available free of cost
by the recipient and are not
within the scope of applicant
for supply of precast manhole
shall form part of the
transaction value for the
purpose of levy of ta

Natani Precast [2023]
151 taxmann.com 55
(AAR- RAJASTHAN)

Applicant had received request for quotation for supply of precast Manholes by M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Two basic
ingredients i.e Cement, & Steel (TMT & Bars), used for manufacturing of precast manholes were to be supplied by M/s
Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Authority held that applicant had intention to manufacture and supply Precast Manholes and Rises and manufacturing
process submitted by the applicant itself reflected that the applicant was engaged in manufacturing of goods. Thus, the
instant transaction of supply of Precast Manholes and Rises was of supply of goods and not a supply of services.
Authority further held that since the applicant was involved in the manufacturing of Manholes and Rises and it could not be
termed as any treatment or process on the goods belonging to the recipient i.e. service of job work, even if inputs were
being supplied free of cost and these inputs wholly were being used in manufacturing of resultant goods and termed as
supply of goods not services. The authority further distinguished Circular No. 47/21/2018-GST, dated 8-6-2018 as it
pertained to an act of modification and treatment on a good wherein in the instant case of applicant, new goods were
manufactured from raw materials and not the work done on the goods belongs to recipient.
Authority further observed that since applicant is to manufacture and supply Precast Manholes and Rises as per specific
order from recipient but cement and iron was to be supplied by recipient on free of cost whereas if recipient were not to
supply main ingredients then it would have been borne by applicant. Thus, Free of cost supply of main ingredients from
recipient was nothing but mutual understanding between both parties which do not debar them from the essence of supply
of goods and consideration received under GST. Thus, it was held that by such type of adjustments applicant will receive
the consideration in barter. I.e. one consideration in the shape of price as per agreement and second in the shape of free
issue of essential inputs like cement and steels. Hence price to be charged from recipient i.e. M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd by
the applicant for supply of precast manhole shall not be transaction value in terms of Section 15(1) & 15(2) of the CGST /
RGST Act 2017 & material which are to be made available free of cost by the recipient and are not within the scope of
applicant for supply of precast manhole shall form part of the transaction value for the purpose of levy of tax

2

HSN
9992

Supply of the aircraft type
rating training services to
commercial pilots is not
exempt from levy of GST

CAE Flight Training
(India) (P.) Ltd [2023]
151 taxmann.com 54
(AAR- KARNATAKA)

The supply of the aircraft type rating training services to commercial pilots, in accordance with the training curriculum
approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation for obtaining the extension of aircraft type ratings on their existing
licenses, do not result into a qualification as the applicant imparts training and issues only course completion certificate and
thus the impugned services are not covered under SI. No. 66 (a) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated
28.6.2017 and thus are exigible to GST under the CGST/ KGST Act 2017

3

Section
29 and
Section
30

Since alternative remedy was
available therefore the High
Court relegated the matter to
concerned authority

Syed Wasim Rohman
v. State of Assam
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 53
(Gauhati)

The petitioner approached the High Court for revocation of cancellation of registration. The High Court observed that
Section 30 of Assam GST Act, 2017 provides alternative and efficacious remedy to the petitioner to apply for revocation of
the cancellation of the registration and thus the Court was of the considered opinion that the petitioner be relegated to the
concerned designated authority for availing remedy as prescribed under the provision of section 30(1) of the Assam GST
Act, 2017

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
29 and
Section
30

Petitioner directed to
file application for
revocation of
Cancellation of
Registration as per
notification no.
3/2023-CTdt 31-3-23

Anandkumar Ramdeo
Singh v.
Commissioner
(Appeals-I) GST and
Central Tax [2023] 151
taxmann.com 13
(Karnataka)

The High Court observed that the notification dated 31.03.2023 has been issued providing for revocation of cancellation of the
registration. Since the cancellation was under the provisions of Section 29(2) of the CGST Act and such cancellation was before
31.12.2022, and an application for revocation was not filed, the High Court stated that application be submitted that in terms of this
notification.

2

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.

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 12
(Madhya Pradesh)
Balaji Electricals
v. Appellate Authority
& Joint Commissioner
State Tax.

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,

3

Section 9

to bear GST Burden
in case of Pre and
Post GST Contracts
wherein impact of
GST was not
considered while
preparing BOQ

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 12
(Madhya Pradesh)
Balaji Electricals
v. Appellate Authority
& Joint Commissioner
State Tax.

The matter in the instant petition was to give by way of direction upon the respondent authority concerned to bear the additional tax
liability for execution of subsisting Government contracts either awarded in the pre-GST regime or in the post GST regime without
updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for inviting the bids
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representations in the aforesaid
regard before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On
receipt of such representations the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department was directed to take a final decision within four
months from the date of receipt of such representation after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned.

4

Section
112

Status of Recovery of
demand on account
of non-constitution of
Tribunal.

Flipkart India (P.) Ltd.
v. Additional
Commissioner of
State Tax (Appeal)
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 10
(Patna)

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- AJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Others in C.W.J.C. No. 15465 of 2022

5

Section
69 and
Section
132

Rejection of
Anticipatory Bail

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 9 (SC)
Sheetal Mittal v. State
of Rajasthan

The Supreme Court held that looking to the role attributed to the petitioner(s) and the observations made by the High Court that the
GST number, name of the firm were fabricated and other details were found to be non-existent, there was no case for anticipatory
bail. The Special Leave Petitions were thus dismissed

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
29

Decision of
Appellate Authority
on issues neither
part of Show Cause
Notice and nor part
of Order

Ajay Building
Material v. State
of U.P.
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 6
(Allahabad)

The High Court held that the order dated 01.12.2020 fell short of the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the appellate
order dated 30.12.2021 clearly exceeds the power conferred upon the appellate authority as it decides the appeal on the issues which were
neither a part of the show-cause notice nor was a consideration when the order dated 01.12.2020 was passed.
Cases Referred- M/s Chandra Sain, v. U.O.I & Ors. (Writ Tax No.147 of 2022) decided on 22.09.2022 as well as M/S Precitech
Engineeers v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Tax No.1583 of 2022) decided on 14.03.2023

2

9966

Diesel
Reimbursement to
form part of Vehicle
Hire Charges

Uttarakhand
Public Financial
Strengthening
Project [2023]
151
taxmann.com 5
(AARUTTARAKHAND)

The Authority held that without fuel the motor vehicle does not operate (run) and without running i.e. moving from one place to another, the
act of motor vehicle hire services does not happen. The motor vehicle hire services have the integral component of running/ operating the
vehicle to one place to another for transportation. Therefore, to claim to provide the said services, actual transportation has to take place
and without fuel this cannot happen. The contract entered between the applicant and the provider of services is for motor vehicle hire
services, wherein the liability to arrange fuel and the maintenance of the vehicle, so deployed lies with the service provider and is a
comprehensive contract with the consideration which varies depending upon the kilometer travelled. Therefore, reimbursement of expenses
for providing said services, under any head is nothing but the additional consideration for the provision of said services and attracts GST on
the total value.
Cases Referred- M/s. Goodwill Auto’s, Hubbali; Dharwad (Karnataka AAR), M/s Vinayak Air Products Pvt. Ltd (Uttarakhand AAR),
M/s Gurjinder Singh Sandhu (Uttarakhan AAR), M/s Tara Genset Engineers (Uttarakhand AAR)

3

Section
69 and
Section
132

Bail granted as
petitioner had faced
incarceration for
more than 1½ years,
complaint still at
summon stage,
other accused
extended benefit of
bail

Kawaljot Singh
v.
Superintendent
Preventive,
CGST
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 4
(Punjab &
Haryana)

The High Court observed that the quantum of amount which the petitioner was involved was yet to be decided at the time of trial. The
petitioner had already faced incarceration for more than 1½ years. The complaint is still at the summoning stage. The other two accused
had already been extended the benefit of default bail and one more co-accused was granted regular bail by the Court who is stated to be
at parity with the present petitioner.
Thus, the High Court considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also considering the total custody of the petitioner which was
more than 1½ years, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner

4

Section
65,
Section
73/74
and
Section
161

Rectification of
Audit Report

Singh Caterers
and Vendors v.
Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 3
(Patna)

The petitioner was aggrieved with the audit report issued under section 65(6) and the non-consideration of the rectification application, the
petitioner made under Section 161 of the Act.
The High Court observed that re-examination of the Audit Report by application under section 161 is not a permissible exercise. The
Assessing Officer had rightly found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, which could be rectified under section 161
and that in any event, section 73 proceedings had been initiated based on the final audit report. The Assessing Officer has also noted that
submission if any made by the tax payer would be taken on record. The Proper Officer has looked at the audit report and has recorded his
satisfaction in the show-cause notice on items raised in the audit report and which enables assessee to raise objections against the same.
Therefore, the High Court was of the opinion that there was no reason why writ petition should be entertained when the rectification
application, on which basis the proceedings under section 73 is sought to be kept in abeyance. If the Assessing Officer has not completed
the proceedings, the petitioner would be entitled to file his objections and seek for consideration of the same before the Assessing Officer