FIR registered against officials and the liquidator of Punj Lloyd Ltd. (PLL), which alleged non‑payment of subcontractor dues and misuse of Goods and Services Tax (GST) input credits in connection with the Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL) pipeline project was quashed as mere breach of contractual obligations, delayed payments, GST disputes, or financial reconciliation issues did not constitute the offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention existed from the inception of the transaction.
The Court granted interim protection after observing that proceedings under Section 73 appeared to nullify refund orders sanctioned under Section 54 without invoking the appellate remedy under Section 107.
The Court held that writ petitions need not continue once the GSTAT becomes operational and statutory appeal timelines are available. It directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy after complying with the prescribed pre-deposit requirements.
The Orissa High Court considered a request for amendment of GST registration where business was conducted from a different location. The petitioner undertook to deposit arrear taxes, interest, late fees, and penalty before seeking amendment.
The Court held that once the GSTAT became functional and appeal timelines were extended, disputes should be pursued before the statutory forum. The petitioner was directed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8).
The Orissa High Court set aside GST demand and rectification orders after finding that the taxpayer’s reply and request for personal hearing were not properly considered. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
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 Orissa High Court directed GST authorities to withdraw bank attachment notices after the taxpayer undertook to pay admitted GST dues in installments. The Court ordered phased payment of the outstanding amount subject to strict timelines.
The High Court ruled that disputes regarding stock calculation methods and seizure proceedings under Sections 122 and 130 of the GST Act could not be decided in writ jurisdiction due to disputed facts.
The Orissa High Court held that dismissal of a Section 34 challenge petition on maintainability grounds effectively amounts to refusal to set aside an arbitral award under Section 37. The Court restored the challenge petition for adjudication on merits.
