Issue No. April/2025/02

IBA Enterprises v State of Karnataka, WP No. 3228 of 2025 (T-RES)

In present facts of the case, Electronic Credit Ledger was blocked by invoking Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, which hinders the Petitioner from utilizing ITC. The Petitioner contended that no pre-decisional hearing was provided to the Petitioner as well as no reasons to believe were provided in the Impugned Order.

The Hon’ble High Court while placing its reliance upon the Judgment of K-9 Enterprises v State of Karnataka in WA No. 100425/2023 have observed that pre-decisional hearing as well as recording of reasons were significant in the said case. Further, it was observed that no Order shall be passed on borrowed satisfaction. Consequently, the Writ Petitions were allowed and the Order pertaining to blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger were withdrawn.

Pawan Kumar v Inspector, CGST, CRM-M-19076-2024 (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

The Petitioner was implicated under Section 132 of CGST as it was alleged that the Petitioner have created fictitious firms and hence was indulged in fake transactions. As the investigation was not completed within 60 days as provided under Section 173 CRPC, the Petitioner applied for bail under Section 167(2) of CRPC, after completing 4 years in jail. But strict conditions for bail were imposed.

The Hon’ble High Court granted bail and observed that stringent conditions were not allowed under Section 479 of BNSS. Also, Section 479 of BNSS applies on under trail prisoners. Further, it was observed that right to bail was indefeasible statutory & constitutional right, reflects a glaring miscarriage of justice.  

Srihari Mandal vs Union of India, (2025) 28 Centax 314 (Cal.) (High Court of Calcutta)

 In present case, the facts were that the Registration of Petitioner was cancelled. The Petitioner submits that after the cancellation of its registration, it has paid all the revenue due and further agrees to pay any outstanding revenue for restoring its registration.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the registration of the Petitioner must be restored and open the portal for a period of 45 days from date of communication of the said order by the counsel of the respondent authority to enable the petitioner to make the payment of revenue due as well as any other due including penalty to be indicated by the respondent authority concerned within a period of 15 working days.

MX Systems International Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Mumbai East, (2025) 28 Centax 429 (Tri. Bom) (CESTAT MUMBAI)

 In present facts, on the basis of ‘third party data’, i.e. Income Tax Authority it was determined that, for financial year 2015-16, turnover of services, was appeared to be erroneous inasmuch as the return to the other authority indicated. Therefore, SCN was issued demanding differential tax, interest and Penalty.

The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that neither Adjudicating Authority nor the Tribunal is concerned with the correctness of the records filed before other tax authorities, the inferences that may be drawn from the two records, neither of which were defended except by furnishing of details of sale of goods either independently or along with the services that is beyond the purview of Finance Act, 1994. Further, it was observed that it was incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to examine the details of the goods said to have been supplied either by way of sale or in the course of supply of service, that constitutes ‘trading’ and, thereby, excluded from the purview of taxability in Finance Act, 1994. Failure to undertake such exercise affects the credibility of the impugned order.