The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST registration cancellation order, ruling that such orders must be speaking and contain explicit reasons as mandated by Rule 22(3) of the CGST Rules. The Court emphasized that failure to provide reasons renders the order arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that an order cancelling GST registration under the CGST Act must be a speaking order, expressly stating reasons for the decision. The Court set aside a cancellation order that lacked reasons, emphasizing the statutory and natural justice requirement for reasoned orders in proceedings with adverse civil consequences.
The Karnataka High Court has held that, following the retrospective amendment to Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, claims for Input Tax Credit (ITC) relating to financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 are permissible if the relevant returns were filed before 30 November 2021, overriding the earlier time limits under Section 16(4).
The Madras High Court has held that where GST assessment appeals are dismissed on limitation grounds, writ petitions may be remitted for de novo adjudication if the petitioner deposits the specified percentage of disputed tax and complies with procedural requirements. The court also clarified the conditions for lifting bank account attachments during such remand proceedings.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that once either Central or State GST authorities initiate adjudicatory proceedings on a particular subject matter, parallel proceedings by the other authority are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The Court directed strict adherence to Supreme Court guidelines to prevent duplication and ensure proper coordination between authorities.
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that review petitions filed by engaging new counsel to disown or embarrass previous counsel and prior settlements constitute an abuse of judicial process. The Court dismissed such a review petition with costs, emphasizing the need for integrity in legal proceedings and adherence to professional standards by state authorities.
The Gauhati High Court has held that when an appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act is filed beyond the normal limitation period but within the condonable period, the Appellate Authority must provide the appellant at least one opportunity to explain the delay before dismissing the appeal as time-barred.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that cancellation of GST registration due to procedural non-compliance is not an absolute bar and may be set aside if the taxpayer remedies the defaults. The Court directed restoration of registration upon filing pending returns and payment of dues, emphasizing that substantive rights should not suffer for curable procedural lapses.
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that orders cancelling GST registration under the CGST Act must be speaking orders, expressly stating the reasons for cancellation. The Court set aside a non-speaking cancellation order, emphasizing the statutory and natural justice requirement for reasoned decisions, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with prescribed procedures.
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that cancellation of GST registration under the CGST Act must be supported by a speaking order, with the Proper Officer expressly recording reasons for the decision. The Court set aside a non-speaking cancellation order, emphasizing the statutory and natural justice requirement to provide reasons, even if the assessee fails to respond.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that healthcare services provided by a clinical establishment to patients through another hospital are exempt from GST under Notification No.12/2017-CGST(Rate) and the corresponding CBIC Circular. The Court quashed show cause notices seeking to levy GST, holding that such services constitute healthcare services and are not taxable as support services.
The Jharkhand High Court has held that writ petitions challenging orders under Section 74 of the CGST Act should not be entertained when an efficacious statutory appeal is available, unless there is a clear lack of jurisdiction or a patent breach of natural justice. The Court emphasized that disputed factual issues must be addressed through the appellate mechanism.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that, under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, once either the Central or State GST authority initiates adjudicatory proceedings on a particular subject matter, parallel proceedings by the other authority are barred. The Court directed authorities to coordinate and follow Supreme Court guidelines to prevent duplication and ensure fair process.
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that black mineral water manufactured and supplied under the brand ‘ALVA’ is classifiable under HSN 22011010 as mineral water. The product is liable to GST at 5% as per Entry No. 146 of Schedule I of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that actions taken by tax authorities under Sections 67 and 83 of the CGST Act, including sealing of business premises and provisional attachment of bank accounts, are valid where the petitioner has not availed statutory remedies. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when alternative remedies exist.
