Stay updated
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Sanjay Construction through Authorized Representative Shivendra Kumar held that interest liability cannot be imposed in the adjudication order when the show cause notice did not quantify or demand such interest, as it would violate Section 75(7) of the GST Act.
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) in M/s ITI Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C)/150/2024 dated March 20, 2026] set aside the order dated April 30, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Dimapur Division under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) for Financial Year 2018–19 on two grounds: ..
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Sona Enterprises held that recovery under Section 75(12) read with Section 79 of the CGST Act is permissible only where the registered person has clearly disclosed a tax liability in returns filed under Section 39 and such admitted liability remains unpaid, and that the said recovery mechanism cannot be invoked where the Revenue alleges wrong usage of input tax credit, which must be addressed only through adjudication under Sections 73 or 74.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Duttcon Consultant and Engineers Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Shyambazar Charge & Ors. [WPA No. 24188 of 2025, order dated December 09, 2025] held summary Form GST DRC-01 show cause notice and DRC-07 adjudication order bereft of relevant facts/reasons violate mandatory Section 75(6) WBGST/CGST Act requirement for quasi-judicial orders, “additional notices and orders” portal tab upload improper service per precedents, no opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) despite adverse decision are liable to be set aside.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Jagjit Enterprises (P.) Ltd. quashed an order passed under Section 73 of the UPGST Act without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, following the rationale of the Division bench of the same Court in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 dated March 4, 2024.
Recently, the SGST and CGST Departments have issued Intimation for payment of Interest on Self-Assessment Tax Paid which pertains to Section 50 Interest payable on such Self-Assessment Tax Paid
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MHJ Metaltechs Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi [SLP Civil Diary No. 33710/2025, order dated September 08, 2025] held that the discretionary power under Article 136 to grant Special Leave Petition is not to be exercised when statutory appellate remedies are available, and the limitation on adjournments under Section 75(5) of the CGST Act is mandatory in allowing a maximum of three adjournments without guaranteeing that all such adjournments must be granted.
One of the plight for taxpayers in GST is that there are apparently five provisions (without including the provisions of fraud, or wilful misstatement etc) which charge them for delayed payment of Tax and ground reality is that these provisions are being invoked arbitrarily with a complete lack of clarity at ground level. The provisions are as follows-
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in M/s. Bangalore Golf Club v. Commercial Tax Officer [W.P. No. 8050 of 2024 dated June 05, 2024], set aside the assessment order as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Assessee before passing of adverse order, thereby holding that, it is mandatory to grant opportunity of hearing as required under section 75(4) of the CGST Act when an adverse order is being contemplated against the Assessee.