| Circular No. |
Subject |
|
Circular No.
249/06/2025-GST dt. 09.06.2025 |
Generation
and quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN) on any communication
issued by the officers of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs (CBIC) to tax payers and other concerned persons |
|
Circular No. 239/33/2024-GST
dt. 04.12.2024 |
Amendment to
Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST, dated 9th February, 2018 on 'Proper officer
under sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
and under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017' |
|
Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST dt.
15.10.2024 |
Clarification of various doubts related to Section 128A of the CGST Act,
2017. |
|
Circular No.
237/31/2024-GST dt.15.10.2024 [Para 3] |
Clarifying the issues
regarding implementation of provisions of sub-section (5) and
sub-section (6) in section 16 of CGST Act, 2017. |
|
Circular No. 185/17/2022-GST
dt. 27.12.2022 |
Clarification with regard to applicability of provisions of section
75(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and its effect on
limitation |
|
Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST
dt. 06.07.2022 [Para 1 (1)] |
Clarification on various issues relating to applicability of demand and
penalty provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in
respect of transactions involving fake invoices. |
|
Circular
No.169/01/2022-GST dt. 12.03.2022 |
Amendment to Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST,
dated 9th February, 2018 on ‘Proper officer under sections 73 and 74 of
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and under the Integrated
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
|
Circular
No.128/47/2019-GST dt. 23.12.2019 |
Generation
and quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN) on any communication
issued by the officers of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs (CBIC) to tax payers and other concerned persons |
|
Circular No.
122/41/2019-GST dt. 05.11.2019 |
Generation
and quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN) on any communication
issued by the officers of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs (CBIC) to tax payers and other concerned persons |
|
Circular
No. 31/5/2018-GST dt. 09.02.2018 |
Proper officer under sections 73
and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and under the
Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
|
Authority |
One liner |
|
2025(07)LCX0209
Madras High Court
R Ashaarajaa |
Bunching
multiple financial years into one GST show-cause notice is statutorily
impermissible. |
|
2025(07)LCX0204
Bombay High Court
Nuvoco Vistas Corporation |
Courts will
not interfere with show cause notices unless jurisdictional error is
evident on the face. |
|
2025(07)LCX0195
Allahabad High Court
SREI Equipment Finance Limited |
Tax
authorities cannot enforce pre-CIRP claims post-approval of the
Resolution Plan under IBC. |
|
2025(07)LCX0147
Madras High Court
Agri Tech Corporation |
Assessment
orders violating natural justice and lacking clear procedural compliance
must be re-adjudicated on terms. |
|
2025(07)LCX0107
Madras High Court
JIT Auto Comp |
Section 74
cannot be invoked without establishing fraud; procedural fairness
demands full document consideration.
|
|
2025(07)LCX0086
Allahabad High Court
Lalaram Thekedar |
Service of notice solely via portal post-registration cancellation
violates natural justice.
|
|
2025(07)LCX0085
Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj V Sajjan |
Short payment without suppression warrants adjudication under Section
73, not 74, of the CGST Act. |
|
2025(07)LCX0084
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Godavari Polymers Private Limited |
Absence of DIN and signature in GST orders renders them void and
unenforceable
|
|
2025(07)LCX0037
Calcutta High Court
Hotel Rudra |
Ex parte
orders without hearing violate natural justice and warrant remand for
fresh adjudication.
|
|
2025(06)LCX0475
Madras High Court
Tata Play Limited |
Section
168A empowers the Government to extend statutory timelines during
extraordinary circumstances; notifications issued thereunder are valid. |
|
2025(06)LCX0453
Madras High Court
Tvl SKP Readymix |
Assessment orders must reflect application
of mind and deal with taxpayers replies through reasoned discussion. |
|
2025(06)LCX0363
Calcutta High Court
Synthroma Laboratories |
Pre-show
cause notice must culminate in timely decision to preserve taxpayer’s
statutory rights under Section 128A. |
|
2025(06)LCX0319
Gauhati High Court
Biswa Ranjan Borah |
Summary
notices without proper show cause and hearing violate Sections 73 and
75(4) of CGST Act. |
|
2025(06)LCX0311
Allahabad High Court
F K Fancy Zari Art |
Mere reproduction of a GST notice without reasoning violates Section
75(6) and renders the order invalid. |
|
2025(06)LCX0302
Madras High Court
Tvl Leto |
Portal-only service without exploring alternate modes under Section 169
violates natural justice. |
|
2025(05)LCX0146
Allahabad High Court
Janta Machine Tools |
Tax demand
for excess stock must follow Section 73/74, not Section 130 of GST Act |
|
2025(05)LCX0078
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jain Enterprises |
Writ
challenging a show cause notice without availing the opportunity to
reply is premature and non-maintainable. |
|
2025(04)LCX0430
Madras High Court
Indian Railway Finance Corporation
Limited |
Natural justice mandates that new grounds in tax orders must be preceded
by due notice and hearing. |
|
2025(04)LCX0173
Allahabad High Court
Merino Industries Ltd. |
GST order
u/s 74 of the GST Act, 2017was quashed for violating natural justice by
denying the assessee a personal hearing u/s 75(4) of the GST Act,
despite a written request |
|
2025(03)LCX0382
Allahabad High Court
Singh Electrical Store |
Section 74
of the CGST Act cannot be invoked without stating grounds of fraud or
misstatement |
|
2025(03)LCX0377
Delhi High Court
Neelgiri Machinery |
Orders
passed and uploaded under "Additional Notices and Orders," tab making
less directly visible were set aside in view of ensuring compliance with
principles of natural justice and importance of proper communication and
accessibility of notices |
|
2025(03)LCX0357
Kerala High Court
Narayana Rama Bhat |
Issuing a
single composite GST order for multiple financial years is not legally
permissible |
|
2025(03)LCX0140
Kolkata Tribunal
Raza International |
Commissioner (Appeals) is obligated to pass a detailed ex-parte order
after reviewing the importer Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal,
regardless of the importer presence at the hearing. |
|
2025(03)LCX0007
Kolkata Tribunal
Asha Enterprises |
Non
challenging of the assessment order is deemed to attain finality and
initiation of any subsequent proceedings against such order is erroneous |
|
2025(02)LCX0167
Allahabad High Court
Chandrashekhar Yadav |
Necessary
allegations of fraud willful misstatement or suppression of facts for
imposition of interest and penalty u/s 74 of GST Act were absent in both
the show cause notice and the order thus invocation of demand is
invalid. |
|
2025(02)LCX0129
Telangana High Court
Bigleap Technologies and Solutions
Private Limited |
Unsigned
show-cause notices and final orders under GST even when uploaded online
are invalid because the signature column in the prescribed forms
constitutes a mandatory statutory requirement for authenticity. |
|
2025(02)LCX0100
Kerala High Court
Lakshmi Mobile Accessories |
Court
directed separate orders for each financial year in response to a
consolidated SCN under the CGST Act |
|
2025(02)LCX0010
Kerala High Court
Minimol Sabu |
High Court
cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking part adjudication of a show cause notice under Section
74 of the CGST Act/SGST Act except when there is a total lack of
jurisdiction in issuing the notice. |
|
2025(01)LCX0033
Chandigarh Tribunal
Iffco Tokio Insurance Services Limited |
Cenvat
credit cannot be denied due to procedural irregularities |
|
2024(12)LCX0040
Calcutta High Court
Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited |
SCN u/s 74 of the CGST Act is merely the
initiation of an adjudicatory process and does not warrant judicial
interference unless it is shown to be issued wholly without
jurisdiction or is ex-facie perverse. |
|
2024(11)LCX0434
Madras High Court
Total Environment Building Systems Pvt.
Ltd |
Order
passed u/s 74 of GST Act without taking into account the documents filed
in support of the replies submitted is set aside for reconsideration if
assessee re-produces entire documents. |
|
2024(11)LCX0039
Bombay High Court
Esjapee Impex (P) Ltd. |
Adjudicating Authority should have adjudicated the SCN within a
reasonable time; failure to do so is bound to cause prejudice to the
assessee. |
|
2024(09)LCX0571
Allahabad High Court
Wonder Enterprises |
Passing an appellate order on a date later than the hearing without
statutory backing violates GST procedural fairness. |
|
2024(09)LCX0555
Madras High Court
S & S Communications |
An
assessment order under Section 74 of the GST Act, which applies the
extended period of limitation is without jurisdiction unless it
explicitly establishes fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of
facts. |
|
2024(04)LCX0458
Allahabad High Court
Sapphire International |
Quantification of tax liability cannot be done under Section 130 but
only under Section 74 of the GST Act. |
|
2024(02)LCX0425
Delhi High Court
Aarem Trad Ex Private Limited |
Proper
officer need to at least consider the reply on merits before forming an
opinion whether the explanation of assessee was sufficient or not. |
|
2024(02)LCX0423
Delhi High Court
Emco Cables (India) Private Limited |
Proper
officer need to at least consider the reply on merits before forming an
opinion whether the explanation of assessee was sufficient or not. |
|
2024(02)LCX0324
Telangana High Court
Rays Power Infra Private Limited |
Section 74 CGST Act would not be applicable
if all the tax liability along with interest as per section 73(5) CGST
Act has been paid. |
|
2024(01)LCX0498
Allahabad High Court
Khanna Polyrib Private Limited |
Assessee's
right to object to the SCN and participate in the personal hearing
cannot be comprised if SCN had been served without all its contents and
annexures |
|
2024(02)LCX0324
Telangana High Court
Rays Power Infra Private Limited |
Section 74 CGST Act would not be applicable
if all the tax liability along with interest as per section 73(5) CGST
Act has been paid. |
|
2023(07)LCX0264
Allahabad High Court
Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Private Limited |
Issuance of notice under Section 61(3)
cannot be construed as a condition precedent for initiation of action
under Section 74 of the CGST Act. |
|
2023(11)LCX0112 Calcutta High
Court
GOUTAM BHOWMIK |
verification of returns as contemplated
under section 61 is neither a pre-condition nor a sine qua non for
initiation of proceedings under section 74 of the West Bengal GSTAct. |
|
2021(07)LCX0205
Allahabad High Court
V.S. Enterprises |
Multiple overlapping GST orders without
hearing are invalid; matter remanded for fresh adjudication after due
opportunity.
|
|
2021(07)LCX0157
Allahabad High Court
RM Dairy Products LLP
|
In case there is no
credit available in ECL on the date of the order passed under Rule 86A,
that order would be read to create a lien.
|
|
2021(04)LCX0017
Madras High Court
Shri NandhiDhall Mills
India Private Limited |
Payment of any amount by
admitting tax liability under the stress of investigation, cannot lead
to self-assessment or self-ascertainment. u/s 74(5) |
|
2021(03)LCX0147
Madras High Court
Sri Kanniga Parameswari
Modern Rice Mill |
The order passed by
violation of principles of natural justice is set aside.
|
|
2021(02)LCX0096
Jharkhand High Court
R.P.M. Distributors
|
Interest on delayed GST
payment must be levied on net tax liability, not gross liability.
|
|
2021(01)LCX0087
Gujarat High Court
Diesel World Pvt. Ltd.
|
Refund recovery via
Section 74 notice for credit utilization sequence is impermissible;
appeal is appropriate remedy.
|
|
2020(09)LCX0128
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Kochukudiyil
Ishabeevi Alias Isha Shaefi |
Benefit of non-serving of
notice u/s 74(1) cannot be granted without payment u/s 74(5). |
|
2020(07)LCX0083
Gujarat High Court
Hasimkhan Liyakatkhan
Pathan
|
DRC-07 order passed
during lockdown without hearing violates natural justice; remanded for
fresh adjudication.
|
|
2019(03)LCX0033
Rajasthan High Court
Leel Electricals Limited
|
Court is not convinced by
arguments advanced by petitioner, therefore notice of summon is not
quashed |
