Facts. The petitioner, proprietor of M/s M.K. Traders dealing in iron and steel scrap, was first under State GST enforcement (notice dated 17.06.2025) for transactions with three suppliers. During that inquiry DGGI (Central), acting on BIFA-generated intelligence of fake ITC of about ₹21.11 crore availed and passed on without actual supply, searched his premises under Section 67 on 10.09.2025; the search was obstructed and evidence allegedly destroyed. He was arrested on 16.09.2025 under Section 69(1) for an offence under Section 132(1)(c), and sought quashing of the criminal proceedings and a declaration that the arrest was illegal.

Ruling. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Armour Security, the Court held the Section 6(2)(b) bar is attracted only where two authorities proceed on the same subject-matter; ‘initiation of proceedings’ means issuance of an SCN, and summons, search and seizure do not qualify. As the State inquiry had been transferred to DGGI, the parallel-proceedings plea failed. On the arrest, following Prabir Purkayastha, Radhika Agarwal and Instruction No. 01/2025-GST, the Court found the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing, acknowledged, and supported by material showing non-cooperation and destruction of evidence; the arrest was lawful and the petition was dismissed.

Facts. The petitioner had availed input tax credit but filed its GST returns beyond the original statutory timeline, and the department rejected the ITC solely on the ground of delayed filing, invoking no other ground in the impugned order. Section 16(5) was subsequently inserted, extending the time limit for availing ITC linked to the return due dates, and the petitioner’s returns fell within this extended period. The petitioner challenged the denial as untenable in the light of the amendment.

Ruling. The Court noted that the statutory window for availing ITC had been enlarged by the insertion of Section 16(5), and that the petitioner had complied within that extended period. Since the only ground for denial was delay, and that delay stood cured by the amendment, rejection of ITC could not be sustained. The Government Counsel accepted notice and conceded the legal position. The impugned order denying ITC was accordingly set aside and the writ petition disposed of.

Facts. On 15.12.2023 the petitioner sought refund of IGST of ₹1,63,70,582 paid on exports of pre-packaged and labelled rice (Chapter Heading 1006) covered by shipping bills for the period 08.05.2023 to 17.07.2023, with an alternative prayer to amend the shipping bills from ‘LUT’ to ‘IGST paid’ under Section 149 of the Customs Act. By order dated 22.02.2024 the Customs authority rejected the application solely under Section 149, holding that no documentary evidence existed at the time of export, and did not deal with the primary prayer for refund of IGST.

Ruling. The Court held that the exports were undisputed and the application had specifically sought release of IGST paid on the exported goods; the rejection had proceeded only under Section 149 and failed to examine the claim under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. As the case did not fall within any of the three withholding situations in Rule 96(4) and the goods were covered by Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), the refund had to be processed under the GST mechanism, following Amit Cotton Industries. Without deciding the Section 149 amendment issue, it directed the respondents to process the refund and kept the matter pending for a consequential order.

Facts. The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice and the Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2025 which sought to deny refund by invoking Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules. Rule 89(4B) had been omitted by Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause. The issue was treated as no longer res integra in the light of the Gujarat High Court’s decision in JJ Plastalloy Private Limited and connected matters dealing with the analogous omission of Rule 96(10).

Ruling. Following its earlier decisions and the Bombay High Court in Hikal Limited, the Court held that omission of a rule without a saving clause, and without the benefit of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, obliterates the provision, so that all pending proceedings — undisposed notices and even orders passed before 08.10.2024 but not finalised due to appeals or challenges — do not constitute ‘transactions past and closed’ and stand lapsed. As the GSTAT was not yet constituted, the impugned orders had not attained finality. The SCN and Order-in-Original were quashed and the refund directed to be processed in accordance with law.

Facts. A show-cause notice dated 25.09.2023 was uploaded on the GST portal under the head ‘Additional Notices’ rather than the prescribed head ‘Notices and Orders’. The petitioner did not become aware of it and was proceeded against ex parte; an adjudication order dated 29.12.2023 was passed, followed by a recovery notice dated 11.08.2025. The petitioner contended that it never had a fair opportunity to respond and that the notice and order were non-speaking.

Ruling. As it was undisputed that the notice had been uploaded under ‘Additional Notices’ and not under ‘Notices and Orders’, the Court held there was no proper or effective service under Section 169. Once the foundational notice was not duly served, the petitioner stood denied a fair opportunity and the ex parte adjudication could not be sustained; the recovery notice, being founded on the invalid order, was equally unsustainable. The notice, order and recovery notice were quashed, with liberty to the authority to issue a fresh notice on or before 31.07.2026, limitation not to bar such notice.

Facts. The petitioner, a sole proprietor, obtained GST registration on 28.06.2023 and then defaulted in filing returns for over six months. A cancellation show-cause notice (05.02.2024) and a defaulter notice (25.02.2024) drew no reply, and registration was cancelled by order dated 02.04.2024. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 on 04.12.2024 — well beyond the 30-day appeal window under Section 107 — explaining that his mother’s terminal illness and death had caused the delay in filing returns and in preferring an appeal.

Ruling. The Court accepted that although the Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay under Section 107, it could exercise Article 226 jurisdiction to condone delay in compelling circumstances, as recognised in Kolapudi Enoch Washington and Nagson & Co. The explanation based on the terminal illness and demise of the petitioner’s mother was accepted as sufficient cause. The petition succeeded in part: the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal within four weeks, to be decided on merits without rejection on limitation, the benefit to lapse if not availed within that window.

Facts. The petitioner traded 17,200 kgs of Assam-dried areca nuts sold under a GST invoice for ₹33.81 lakhs. The truck carrying the goods from Hailakandi to Rupohihat (Nagaon) was intercepted at Karimganj and seized on 02.12.2025 by the Badarpur Customs authorities, alleging illegal import from Myanmar without licit import documents. Provisional release was refused on 12.02.2026 on the belief that the areca nuts were of Myanmar origin; samples were tested and found fit for human consumption, but no report or contemporaneous material established foreign origin, while the records carried a valid tax invoice, GST payment and e-way bill.

Ruling. Relying on Lakhmani Mewal Das, Charan Das Malhotra and Radhika Agarwal, the Court held that the power to seize under Section 110 requires ‘reasons to believe’ having a rational connection or live link with material — a higher threshold than mere suspicion. Confiscation under Section 111 applies only to goods brought from outside India; absent any material indicating foreign origin, the statutory precondition failed, while domestic sale and movement stood evidenced by invoice, GST payment and e-way bill. The seizure was held to be without jurisdiction, quashed and set aside, and release of the areca nuts and the truck was directed unless fresh material emerged.