The issue was whether a toll contractor should receive relief after the government significantly reduced toll rates shortly after awarding the contract. The High Court granted interim protection against contract cancellation, subject to payment of a reduced monthly amount, and directed the committee to decide the representation expeditiously.
The Court held that the statutory appellate remedy had become available following the Tribunals constitution and appointments. Appeals filed by June 30, 2026, must be entertained without limitation objections.
The Court held that a challenge to the validity of a GST circular cannot be relegated to the appellate authority under Section 107, as such authority lacks power to declare a circular ultra vires. The writ petition was remanded for consideration of the vires challenge.
The Madras High Court held that suspension of GST registration through the impugned GST REG-17 notice was unwarranted. While allowing cancellation proceedings to continue, the Court quashed the suspension portion of the notice and directed adherence to the Suguna Cut Piece Center guidelines.
The High Court set aside the GST demand for fresh adjudication after finding that the authorities had not properly examined stock records, GSTR filings, and transitional credit claims before confirming the demand.
The Court set aside the provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 after the petitioner agreed to furnish a ₹1.5 crore fixed deposit. It held that the revenue’s interests could be safeguarded through the deposit while allowing the petitioner to continue business operations.
The Court set aside a Section 73 order after finding a violation of natural justice. It held that after cancellation of registration, mere uploading of a notice on the GST portal was insufficient.
The Orissa High Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal became functional, the taxpayer should pursue the statutory appeal remedy. The Court directed compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) before filing the appeal.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the 90-day period prescribed under Section 101(2) for deciding GST advance ruling appeals is directory and does not cause automatic lapse of proceedings. The Court allowed departmental appeals to proceed on merits.
The Madras High Court permitted the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appeal despite the assessment and rectification orders. The relief was granted subject to an additional pre-deposit and compliance with specified conditions.
