Andhra Pradesh High Court held that GST officers of a transit State cannot invoke Sections 129 or 130 against goods merely passing through the State. The ruling clarifies that IGST transactions unrelated to the State do not confer detention or confiscation powers.
Gujarat High Court held that GST paid on cotton seed oil cake must be refunded since the product is exempt as cattle feed under Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate). The ruling clarifies that exemption depends on end use as cattle feed, not the supply route or purchaser category.
The Delhi High Court held that an adjudication order passed by an officer who never personally heard the assessee violates principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that “one who hears must decide” and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
GSTAT directed service through registered post/speed post after notices sent via portal and email failed to receive any effective response from the Department. The Tribunal held that Section 169 of the CGST Act permits cumulative modes of service to ensure proper adjudication and natural justice.
The Gujarat High Court held that authorities cannot pass adverse GST orders without complying with the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 75(4). The Court ruled that even if the assessee opts against personal hearing, principles of natural justice must still be followed.
The Karnataka High Court held that adjudication by the same officer who conducted the GST audit raises serious concerns of bias and violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded after directing that jurisdictional objections be decided before proceeding on merits.
The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts can grant bail in UAPA cases where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial violate Article 21. The Court clarified that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
The Madras High Court held that common packaging elements, graphics, and colour schemes do not automatically create a “brand name” under GST law. The ruling clarifies that exemption cannot be denied merely due to visual similarity where enforceable brand rights are relinquished.
The Bombay High Court held that importers under CIF contracts cannot be taxed under reverse charge for ocean freight since they are not recipients of the transportation service. The Court quashed the show cause notice and ruled the levy beyond statutory charging provisions.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Section 73 GST notice lacking specific details, computations, and supporting material is legally unsustainable. The ruling emphasizes that vague allegations violate principles of natural justice and deprive taxpayers of an effective opportunity to respond.
