S.No

Section

CAse Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
107

Acceptance
of Manual
Appeal

Sakthi Steel Industries
India (P.) Ltd. v. AAC
(State Tax) [2023] 153
taxmann.com 362 (AP)

Petitioner had filed an appeal before appellate authority through official website, but since appellate authority had not been mapped i.e., constituted,
digital mode of filing of appeal was not accepted and numbered. Thereafter, petitioner filed appeal manually and same was pending. Considering
respective submissions and in the interest of justice, High Court directed to consider the appeal and register if it is otherwise in order.

2

Section
74

Deposit of
Tax by
Taxpayer on
two different
dates i.e.
even after
the date of
Search did
not by itself
constitute
SelfAssessment
but should
contain
material on
record of
being
voluntary
and revenue
having
applied its
mind to be
treated as
SelfAssessment

Parsvnath Traders v.
Principal
Commissioner, CGST
[2023] 153
taxmann.com 361
(Punjab & Haryana)

Facts-Petitioner stated that on 05.02.2021, search was conducted under Section 67 and petitioner was forced to deposit a sum of Rs.20 lacs on
the same day. They also deposited an additional amount of Rs.30,70,216/- on 16.02.2021. The respondents did not issue any SCN or order
determining its tax liability. Petitioner made request in writing to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.50,70,216/- but the same was rejected
by order dated 18.05.2021. Revenue stated that petitioner deposited the amount through DRC-03 and were voluntary payments amounting to
admission. It was denied that the petitioner was forced to deposit the amount of Rs.50.70 lacs.
-Section 74(5) is not a statutory sanction for advance payment-Section 74(5) cannot be considered as a statutory sanction for advance tax
payment, pending final determination because that would be contrary to scheme of assessment as set out under Section 74. Section 74(6) provides
an opportunity for assessee and/or to revenue to ascertain proper amount of tax, interest and penalty and even in cases where there might have
been a shadow of wrong declaration, wrong availment or utilisation of ITC, or short payment of tax, there can be closure of proceedings at that
stage itself on the basis of either 'self-ascertainment' and acceptance of same by revenue or vice-a-versa.
-Deposit of Tax by Taxpayer on two different dates i.e. even after the date of Search did not by itself constitute Self-Assessment but
should contain material on record of being voluntary and revenue having applied its mind to be treated as Self-Assessment- There should
have been a material on record to show that petitioner had in fact, accepted the ascertainment made by it and the revenue had applied its mind
and arrived at the conclusion that 'self-ascertainment' by the assessee was adequate/inadequate. The petitioner on the contrary is shown to have
consistently contested its liability to make payment of the tax. The 'self-ascertainment' which is contemplated under Section 74(5) of the Act, 2017
is in the nature of ' self-assessment' and amounts to a determination by it which is unconditional and not as in the present case when shortly after
depositing the amount Rs.50.70 lacs, the petitioner approached the revenue for refund.
No Crystallised liability on record- Neither any crystalised liability was shown to be existing nor any SCN had been issued either at that time or
even till now and amount of Rs.50.70 lacs was recovered from it during investigation and has been retained by it.
Held-The petitioner shortly after depositing the amount of Rs.50.70 lacs had approached the revenue for refund of the same therefore,
ascertainment as contemplated under Section 74(5) which amounts to an unconditional determination and in the nature of 'self
assessment' is not attracted and hence, the deposit could not be stated to be voluntary deposit by any stretch of imagination,
irrespective of the fact that deposits were made in the form of GST DRC-03.
Cases Referred- M/s Bhumi Associate v. UOI (2021) 46 GSTL 36, Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd.v.UOI, 2009 (234) E.L.T. 234 (P&H), Concepts
Global Impex v. UOI, 2019(365) E.L.T. 32 (P&H), Century Knitters (India) Ltd. v. UOI, 2013 (293) E.L.T. 504 (P&H), William E Connor Associates
& Sourcing Pvt Ltd v. UOI, Diwakar Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of CGST and Others, 2023(98) GST 322, Modern Insecticides Ltd and
Others v. Commissioner, CGST Others

3

Section
74

Refund
sanctioned
earlier can
be reopened
under
Section 74

Ganesh Ores (P.) Ltd.
v. State of Odisha
[2022] 137
taxmann.com 164
(SC

Refund was granted to the Petitioner. Thereafter notice was issued under section 74(1). Petitioner contended that it was open to the department
to file an appeal under section 107(1) but having missed the time limit for doing so, the Department cannot indirectly seek to reopen the refund
already granted pursuant to an adjudication by resorting to section 74. High Court held that there was no limitation placed in the statute that an
order that is otherwise appealable under section 107 cannot be sought to be revisited under section 74(1) and that it does not appear to make any
distinction between refund orders that have been passed without an adjudication and those which have been passed after adjudication. There is
nothing in section 74(1) to indicate that refund granted after adjudication cannot be sought to be reopened. SLP filed before Apex Court against
the judgement of the High Court (Ganesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. State of Odisha [2022] 137 taxmann.com 163) was dismissed

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
73 and
Section
107

Since the petitioner had
already availed
alternate remedy,
therefore the High Court
declined to interfere

Pappachan Chakkiath
v. Assistant
Commissioner [2023]
151 taxmann.com 275
(Kerala)

It was observed by the High Court that pursuant to the permission granted by the learned single Judge, the appellant had already
filed a statutory appeal. As the appellant had sought for availing the alternate remedy and had, in fact, availed it, the High Court
was not inclined to admit the writ appeal and hear the contentions of the appellant on merits. The High Court further stated that
the Learned Single Judge has considered the contentions and had entered findings only for the purpose of declining jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for entertaining the writ petition and nothing more.

2

Section
107 and
Section
112

Revenue cannot ignore
the Order-in-Appeal and
deny the benefits of the
same on the ground that
it seeks to appeal the
said order

Netgear Technologies
India (P.) Ltd. v.
Assistant
Commissioner GST
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 273
(Delhi)

The petitioner's application for refund was rejected by the officer by an Order-in-Original. The Appellate Authority allowed the
appeal by an Order-in-Appeal. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner's request for the claim was not processed. The petitioner
filed another application once again claiming refund of the said amount. Thereafter, by a communication dated 10.08.2021, the
petitioner was informed that the Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate had directed the respondent to file an appeal
against the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.03.2021. The said appeal has not been preferred as yet.
The High Court noted that the respondent had taken no steps to secure any order about the stay of the Order-in-Appeal pursuant
to which the petitioner was now entitled to the claim of refund. The High Court allowed the petition and rejected the contention of
the revenue that the Revenue can ignore the Order-in-Appeal and deny the benefits of the same on the ground that it seeks to
appeal the said order.
Cases Referred-Zones Corporate Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi East & Anr.:
2020-VIL-302-DEL:W.P.(C) 3620/2020 and Alex Tour and Travel Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST

3

Section
98

Principle of Natural
Justice should have
been followed and
petitioner should have
been informed that
application could be
rejected without
admission

KBL SPML 25JV v.
Authority for Advance
Ruling [2023] 151
taxmann.com 272
(Karnataka)

The advance ruling authority had rejected the petitioner's application as contemplated under Section 98(2) of the CGST/KGST Act
recording that the petitioner, who had the benefit of contract for construction of pumping stations and reservoirs as also for
Operation and Maintenance work between 01.11.2014 and 31.10.2021, had filed application for advance ruling on 07.09.2022
after the expiry of the corresponding contractual period.
The High Court was of the considered view that opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 98(2) cannot be an empty
formality, and the petitioner should have been informed that the application could be rejected without admission on the ground the
corresponding contractual period has expired. Therefore, the High Court directed that the opportunity of hearing contemplated was
rendered a mere formality by the Authority. The petitioner must therefore have appropriate liberty to file additional plea to show
cause against such reasoning and the respondent must reconsider the application

4

Section
74

Opportunity of being
heard be granted to the
assessee

Subodh Kumar
Mondal v. State of
West Bengal [2023]
151 taxmann.com 271
(Calcutta)

Impugned orders were passed under Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017. The appellant approached the Writ Court on the
ground that opportunity of personal hearing having not been granted. During the pendency of the writ petitions the entire amount,
which was demanded had been fully recovered except penalty and interest. It was contended by the revenue that notice was
issued fixing the hearing date, but appellant failed to appear on the said date and also did not appear on the adjourned date. The
petitioner contended that in the SCN dt 28th Sep, 2022 in the column regarding details of personal hearing, it was mentioned as
"not applicable".
The High Court that since by way of third party garnishee order, since entire tax demanded from the appellant have been recovered,
therefore, revenue would not be prejudiced if a fresh opportunity of personal hearing is granted to the appellant to put forth his
submissions. Further, in the light of the fact that the entire tax demanded in the three orders has been recovered, the respondent
authorities are directed to de-freeze the bank account of the appellant

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
74

SCN requiring the assessee
to appear for personal
hearing on the “date, time
and venue, if mentioned in
table below", but no date,
time and venue for personal
hearing shown in the notice

Concord Tieup
(P.) Ltd. v. State
of Madhya
Pradesh [2023]
151
taxmann.com 41
(Madhya
Pradesh)

The petitioner contended that SCN under Section 74 was issued making mention about personal hearing to the effect that "you
may appear before the undersigned for personal hearing either in person or through authorized representative for representing
your case on the date, time and venue, if mentioned in table below", but no date, time and venue for personal hearing was shown
in the notice.
The High Court held that in the table given, captioned as "Details of personal hearing etc.", no Date, Time and Venue of personal
hearing was shown and in front of columns 3,4&5 of Date, Time and Venue, NA was mentioned, which was sufficient to infer that
no personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 24.08.2022. The High Court further
observed that it is well settled that when due opportunity of hearing, as required under the law, has not been afforded and principle
of natural justice has not been followed, then the question of availability of alternative remedy does not come in the way for
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order was held to be not sustainable and was
quashed and remitted back.
Case Referred- Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 (59) G.S.T.L. 394 (All.)

2

Section 5
of IGST
Act, 2017

Refund of IGST paid on
Ocean Freight

Krishak Bharati
Co-operative Ltd.
v. Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 42
(Gujarat)

The High Court held that since Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017- IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 has already been declared
ultravires by Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore amount of Rs. 6,98,00,420/- paid by the petitioner as IGST on ocean freight of goods
imported during July, 2017 to December, 2019 be refunded alongwith the statutory rate of interest.
Case Referred- ADI Enterprises v. UOI being Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 10479
of 2019

3

Section
129 and
Section
130

Order being passed in the
name of driver does not
preclude cosignor or the
consignee to challenge the
confiscation of goods along
with supporting documents
evidencing their ownership

Delhivery
Limited
v. State of U.P.
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 43
(Allahabad)

It was contended by the petitioner that since the impugned order was passed against the driver, it would not be open for the
cosignor or the consignee to challenge such order before the appropriate forum. It is otherwise not disputed that the impugned
order is appealable under the statute.
The High Court observed that the cosignor or the consignee were always at liberty to challenge the confiscation of goods along
with the supporting documents evidencing their ownership and merely because the order had been addressed to the driver of the
vehicle would not be to the prejudice of the rights and contentions of the cosigner or the consignee and thus court was not inclined
to entertain the challenge to the order impugned directly in the writ petition.

4

Section
69 and
Section
132

Grant of Bail on deposit of
amount and execution of
personal bond

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 44
(Rajasthan)
Gaurav Kakkar
v. Directorate
General of Gst
Intelligence,
Jaipur Zonal Unit

The High Court observed that petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2022 and since then, he was in judicial custody. The challan of the
case had already been presented and no investigation was pending.
Taking into consideration the investigation and evidence so collected, in the opinion of the High Court, the trial would take
considerable time and it may happen, if denied bail, the judicial custody be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment
which was for five years. The High Court granted bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C with a condition to deposit
Rs. 3 crores by the petitioner before the respondent Department under protest and execution of a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
Case Referred- Vinay Kant Ameta v. UOI (Criminal Appeal No. 60/2022) decided on 10.01.2022 (SC

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
74

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

Jena Trading and
Co. v. CT and GST
Officer [2023] 150
taxmann.com 339
(Orissa

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

2

Section
112

Status of
Recovery of
demand on
account of nonconstitution of
Tribunal

Ritesh Infratech
(P.) Ltd. v. Union of
India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 340
(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-SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others in C.W.J.C. No. 15465 of 2022

3

Section
30

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

[2023] 150
taxmann.com 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.

4

Section
83

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

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

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

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