S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section 67
and Section
54

Refund of
Amount
collected
during the
search

Modern Insecticides Ltd. v.
Commissioner, Central Goods
and Service Tax [2023] 153
taxmann.com 548 (Punjab &
Haryana)

Question for consideration, was whether amount paid by the petitioner on 16-1-2021, could be retained by the department without
issuing the show cause notice under section 74 (1) of the CGST Act that too after expiry of two years.
High Cout observed that amount was deposited from the date when search was conducted. However, no notice under section 74
(1) had been issued. Though department can initiate proceedings under section 74 (1) by issuing notice within the period of limitation,
they cannot retain the amount of Rs. 1.54 crore deposited by the petitioner, which as per department was voluntary. The amount
was deposited during search and as per judgment passed in Vallabh Textiles' case, this deposit cannot be taken to be voluntary.
Since no proceedings under section 74 (1) were initiated till date, as per Rule 142 (1A), the department cannot even issue Form
GST DRC-01A to ask the petitioner to make payment of tax, interest and penalty due. Therefore, a direction was given to return the
amount of Rs. 2.54 crores along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Cases Referred-Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence Officer and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4508, Bhumi Associate v. UOI,
SCA No. 3196 of 2021.

2

Article 226
of
Constitution

Extraordinary
circumstances
not made out
for Article 226

Muhammad Saleem
Shemsudeen v. Enforcement
Officer [2023] 153
taxmann.com 547 (Kerala)

The writ petition was dismissed stating that the Court did not any extra ordinary circumstances made out, to entertain the writ petition
by exercising the plenary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was left up to the petitioner to invoke
his statutory remedies as provided under the GST Acts.

3

Section 29
and Section
30

No
retrospective
Cancellation if
notice does
not provides
so

Virender Kumar Jain v. Delhi
GST Officer, Ward 76 [2023]
153 taxmann.com 546 (Delhi)

The petitioner was not aggrieved by cancellation of his GST Registration; he was aggrieved because the registration had been
cancelled with retrospective effect from 1-7-2017
High Court noted that the show cause notice dated 16-2-2021 did not indicate that the concerned officer had proposed to
cancel the same with retrospective effect. SCN also did not indicate that any inquiries were made, which revealed that the
petitioner had never existed at his declared place of business. The order was an unreasoned order completely disregarding that the
petitioner had filed an application dated 20-11-2020 for cancellation of his GST Registration and disclosed that he had stopped
carrying on business. Thus, the question of petitioner being available at principal place of business did not arise. The High Court
allowed the petition and directed that cancellation of GST Registration shall be effective from 20-11-2020.

4

Section 29
and Section
30

Cancellation
of Registration
by a Cryptic
Notice and
Equally
Cryptic Order

Ottimo Visuals v.
Commissioner of GST [2023]
153 taxmann.com 545 (Delhi)

The petitioner was not aggrieved by cancellation of his GST Registration; he was aggrieved because the registration had been
cancelled with retrospective effect from 1-7-2017
High Court noted that the show cause notice dated 16-2-2021 did not indicate that the concerned officer had proposed to
cancel the same with retrospective effect. SCN also did not indicate that any inquiries were made, which revealed that the
petitioner had never existed at his declared place of business. The order was an unreasoned order completely disregarding that the
petitioner had filed an application dated 20-11-2020 for cancellation of his GST Registration and disclosed that he had stopped
carrying on business. Thus, the question of petitioner being available at principal place of business did not arise. The High Court
allowed the petition and directed that cancellation of GST Registration shall be effective from 20-11-2020.

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
29 and
Section
30

Opportunity of
being heard to
be given
before
cancellation of
registration

VIP Chem
Traders v.
Union of India
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
159 (Gujarat)

The petitioner received notice dated 06.12.2022 inter alia stating that registration of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled due to "returns furnished
by you under section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017". The petitioner was called upon to file reply within 30 days.
High Court set aside the order by stating that there is no gainsaying that the notice since was issued for cancelling the GST registration of the
petitioner, if the final order against the petitioner was to be adverse, it will operate to the detriment and prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the
process of adjudication post issuance of show-cause notice would necessitate observance of natural justice and providing reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and submit appropriate facts and details in relation to the show-cause notice

2

Section
73 and
Section
74

Ex-Parte
Assessment
order set
aside as the
petitioner had
valid ground
for seeking
adjournment

EPMS Property
Services (P.)
Ltd. v. State
Tax Officer
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
171 (Madras)

Notices were issued on 26.08.2019 calling for various particulars for finalizing the assessments. Petitioner could not attend the personal hearing as
its authorised representative was ill. Hence, the orders of assessment came to be passed, without further reference to the petitioner. The petitioner
filed statutory appeals challenging the assessments. The appeals were filed on 20.02.2020. Inter alia, the appeal memorandum contained an error,
in that, the date of receipt of the order was stated as '21.10.2019' instead of 29.09.2019.
The High Court held that orders of assessment suffer from violation of principles of natural justice and the exchange of correspondence between the
parties establishes that the petitioner was cooperating with the proceedings for assessment. This, and the request contained in letter dated
10.09.2019, lead to the conclusion that orders were set aside and the petitioner should be afforded an effective opportunity of hearing and
has been denied the same prior to passing of the orders impugned.

3

Section
74 and
Section
75

Opportunity of
being heard to
be provided in
pursuance of
provision of
Section 75(4)

Sri Krishna
Timbers v.
State Tax
Officer [2023]
152
taxmann.com
173 (Madras)

The petitioner had filed replies on dated 17.12.2020 against the SCN and in conclusion they requested for a personal hearing prior to finalization of
the proceedings. This request was totally ignored by the assessing officer who has instead proceeded to pass the impugned order without hearing
the petitioner. The High Court observed that impugned orders were passed under the provisions of Section 74 of the Act and the officer is, in passing
the orders, bound by the general provisions relating to determination of tax as set out under Section 75 of the Act.
The High Court set aside the impugned orders of assessment and the assessment to be carried out after providing an opportunity of
hearing.

4

Section
67

Onus is on the
Revenue to
prove that the
amount
collected
voluntarily
during search
was not in
violation of
Article 265 of
Constitution of
India

William E
Connor
Associates &
Sourcing (P.)
Ltd. v. Union of
India [2023] 152
taxmann.com
174 (Punjab &
Haryana)

The petitioner contended that a search was conducted on 23.12.2020 and 24.12.2020. In the said search, the petitioners were made to deposit an
amount of Rs.83,89,196/- on 06.01.2021, under protest and on the assurance that it would be reverted in the input tax credit of the petitioner-company.
The petitioners then requested the respondents to reinstate the aforementioned amount in their Input Tax Ledger by sending a letter. But the request
of the petitioners was not considered even though a period of two years had lapsed. The petitioners alleged that no proceedings under Section 74(1)
of the CGST Act had been initiated by the revenue, but still the input tax credit was not reverted in their ledger.
The High Court held that any amount deposited voluntarily by the petitioner during search would not amount to collection of tax under
Article 265 of the Constitution and an amount collected without authority of law, would not amount to collection of tax and the same would
amount to depriving a person of his property without any authority of law and would infringe his rights under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India as well. Since, the respondents failed to place any material on record to show that they got deposited amount of Rs.83,89,196/-
from the petitioners with any authority of law, therefore, the petition as allowed and a direction was given to the respondents to refund the amount of
Rs.83,89,196/- along with the interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition.
Cases Referred- Diwakar Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST and Anr. CWP No.23788 of 2021 decided on 14.03.2023, Modern
Insecticides Ltd and Anr. v. Commissioner, CGST and Anr. CWP No.8035 of 2021decided on 19.04.2023, Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence
Officer and others, 2022 SCC Online Del 4508, Union of India and others v. Bundl Technologies Pvt Ltd and others, ILR 2022 Karnataka 3077

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
129 and
Section
130

Inter-play between
Section 129 and 130 in
Question

Aahana Sales (P.)
Ltd. v. Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 230
(Gujarat)

Petitioner contended that when goods were in transit, the authorities intercepted the goods and confiscated them. In other words,
authorities sought to derive their powers for taking possession of the goods of the petitioner which were in transit under Section 129
of the Act. It was submitted that the said Section begins with non obstante clause and it is a provision independent of Section 130. In
that context, it was submitted that exercise of powers under Section 129 and thereafter switching over to Section 130 and passing
order thereunder without availing the petitioner the benefits of release of the goods under Section 129, could be said to be without
jurisdiction. Special Civil Application No.8353 of 2022 and other matters have been entertained by this court involving the same point
and interim relief of release of the goods and conveyance has also been granted on condition.
The High court directed that upon compliance of the required conditions stated in the order, goods and vehicle both shall be released
by the authorities and the petition be listed with Special Civil Application No.8353 of 2022

2

Section
112

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

SAJ Food Products
(P.) Ltd. v. State of
Bihar [2023] 151
taxmann.com 229
(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- Angel Engicon Private Limited v. the State of Bihar & Anr. passed in C.W.J.C No. 1920 of 2023

3

Section
67

GST officers have no
power to seize any cash
in exercise of its powers
under Section 67(2) of
the GST Act

Arvind Goyal CA v.
Union of India [2023]
151 taxmann.com
228 (Delhi)

The petitioner had contended that GST officers had no power to seize any cash in exercise of its powers under Section 67(2) of the
GST Act. The department contended that that the officers had merely "resumed" cash as is noted in the panchnama and therefore,
the same cannot be considered as seizure. The High Court observed that Prima facie, a plain reading of Section 67(2) of the GST
Act indicates that the seizure is limited to goods liable for confiscation or any documents, books or things, which may be "useful for
or relevant to any proceedings under this Act". Clearly, cash does not fall within the definition of goods. And, prima facie, it is difficult
to accept that cash could be termed as a 'thing' useful or relevant for proceedings under the GST Act. The second proviso to Section
67(2) of the GST Act also provides that the books or things so seized would be retained by the officer only so long as may be
necessary "for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under the Act." However, Court thereafter noted that there was
no occasion for the Court to examine the aforesaid question as it was the respondents' stand that the cash was not seized.
It was contended by the respondent that seizure memo was not prepared as the officers, who had conducted the search operation,
had, in fact, not seized any cash. It was observed by the High Court that there was no provision in the GST Act that could support an
action of forcibly taking over possession of currency from the premises of any person, without effecting the same. The powers of
search and seizure are draconian powers and must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute and only if the necessary conditions
are satisfied. Thus, it was held that the action of taking away currency was illegal and without any authority of law respondents were
directed to forthwith return the balance amount along with the interest accrued thereon to the petitioners and the bank guarantee
furnished by petitioner for release of currency was directed to be released forthwith

4

Section
107

Opportunity of being
heard to be given
considering the reason
for seeking adjournment
was reasonable

Swaraj Equipment
(P.) Ltd. v.
Commissioner
(Appeals II) [2023]
151 taxmann.com
227 (Madras)

The only grievance put forth was that the petitioner was not heard prior to passing of the impugned order. The officer records that
though personal hearing was fixed on 06.01.2023 and re-fixed on 08.02.2023, on both occasions, only adjournment was sought on
the ground that additional information was to be collected. However, the assessee pointed out that marriage reception of his daughter
was on 04.02.2023, on account of which, he was unable to collect the requisite particulars. The High Court was of the considered
view that the aforesaid reason constitutes sufficient cause and that the officer ought to have taken note of the same and re-schedule
the date of hearing to accommodate the request as aforesaid and thus the impugned order was set aside, appeal stood restored