#cgst act

The Bombay High Court held that once the full admitted tax is paid and a Tribunal appeal is filed, Section 112(9) CGST Act automatically stays recovery of disputed interest, as Section 112(8) requires no pre-deposit. The ruling shields taxpayers from coercive recovery during appeals, confirming the stay operates without a separate application.

CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax paid under reverse charge after GST rollout is refundable under Section 142(3) CGST Act as existing law. It lets taxpayers claim refunds for such post-GST payments, clarifying the transitional provision’s scope.

Delhi HC held Section 122(1A) CGST Act applies to any person retaining benefit from fraudulent ITC, including non-taxable persons, and operates prospectively from 1 Jan 2021. The ruling quashes personal penalties on directors, clarifying the provision's scope and shielding taxpayers from retrospective liability.

Tax proceedings can be initiated against a legal representative after a taxpayer's death under Section 93 CGST Act if conditions are met. The department must account for ₹15.4 lakh seized from the deceased's premises within three weeks.

The Delhi High Court upheld a GST search under Section 67 at an advocate's office, ruling that advocate-client privilege does not shield personal conduct from investigation. It directed safeguards for examining seized electronic data while permitting the probe to continue, affecting advocates facing tax inquiries.

Directors of a Delhi-based electronics trading firm cannot bypass the CGST appellate remedy by alleging defective notice service and denial of personal hearing; the Delhi HC held such factual disputes fall outside Article 226 jurisdiction, dismissing challenges to a Rs. 27.11 crore penalty under Section 122(1A) CGST Act.

Calcutta HC held that CGST Rule 96(10), omitted without a saving clause, has no legal existence and cannot ground proceedings, quashing GST notice against Glen Industries. This confirms that actions under omitted rules are invalid, impacting taxpayers.

The Gauhati HC held a Section 73(2) CGST show cause notice dated 29 Nov 2024 timely as three months remained after excluding the notice date, letting the appellant reply. This clarifies the GST notice limitation period and affects taxpayers.

The Delhi High Court held that input tax credit blocked under Rule 86A cannot be used to satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) for filing a GST appeal. The court granted the petitioner four weeks from the judgment date to file the appeal with interim protection from coercive recovery.

The Calcutta High Court held that, under Rule 86A CGST, GST authorities must provide a pre-decisional hearing before blocking a taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger, reinforcing natural-justice safeguards. Accordingly, the order freezing Rs 4.43 crore of input tax credit was set aside, restoring the petitioner’s right to claim ITC and signalling that tax officials must follow due-process before restricting credit.

The Gujarat High Court held corporate guarantees are not a supply under the CGST Act, striking down Rule 28(2) and related CBIC circulars. Consequently, issuers of such guarantees are exempt from GST, removing the tax burden nationwide.

Delhi HC ruled that a CGST penalty must be contested through a Section 107 appeal and that the pre-deposit requirement is governed by the original provision, staying recovery until the taxpayer deposits 25 % of the penalty. The order clarifies the procedural path for taxpayers while the scope of Section 122(1) remains pending before the Supreme Court.

The Delhi High Court ruled that fees charged by an advocate serving as an interim resolution professional are subject to GST under the normal forward-charge mechanism, rejecting the IBBI’s reverse-charge classification. Consequently, such professionals must issue GST-compliant invoices and remit tax themselves, affecting all lawyer-insolvency professionals and the corporate debtors they handle.

The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court may not issue a week-long protection from arrest unless a Section 69 order under the CGST Act has been passed, and that interim relief is unavailable once a pre-arrest bail plea is rejected. Taxpayers facing GST raids must first secure a valid Section 69 order, curbing lower courts’ protective powers.

Karnataka High Court upholds arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, ruling that simultaneous investigations by State and Central GST authorities do not render proceedings invalid. The judgment clarifies that dual enforcement does not constitute abuse of process, reinforcing powers to combat input tax credit fraud.