Alternative Remedy
6 articles
An Order Filed in the Wrong Portal Tab Is Not Communicated: Bombay High Court Revives a Time-Barred GST Appeal in Elster Metering
A Section 73 adjudication order was uploaded in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal and the appeal against it was rejected as late. The Bombay High Court held that filing returns on the portal does not show knowledge of an order placed in the wrong tab, and revived the appeal.
13 min readSeven Days Means Seven Days: Calcutta High Court Quashes Section 129 Penalty Orders Passed 175 Days Late on Two Detained Lorries
Two lorries hired out to a transporter were detained in July 2025 and the penalty orders came in January 2026. The Calcutta High Court held that the seven-day period for the order in Section 129(3) had run out on 24 July 2025, that nothing paused it, and that the orders were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.
14 min readWho Is the Proper Officer for a Section 122 Penalty? Telangana High Court on Jurisdiction, Section 160 and the Appeal Route in a Rs. 17.27 Crore Fake-Invoice Case
A trader challenged a Section 122 show cause notice and a penalty order on the ground that no proper officer had been assigned that function before CBIC Circular 254/11/2025-GST. The Telangana High Court rejected the jurisdiction plea and sent every other ground to the appellate authority.
15 min readAudit Findings and Section 74: Patna High Court Declines to Quash a Fraud-Based GST Notice and Sends the Assessee to Appeal
In Amit Agency v. Commissioner, CGST and CX, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court distinguishes G.R. Infra Projects and Tata Steel, refuses to test the sufficiency of the officer's satisfaction under Section 74(1), and directs the assessee to the appellate authority.
13 min readA Reply Handed Over at the Hearing Must Be Read: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Section 74 Order That Treated a Manually Filed Reply as No Reply
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court has quashed a Section 74 order for 2019-20 that proceeded as if no reply existed, although the Superintendent had signed an acknowledgment of the contractor's written reply. The Court held that Rule 142(4) of the CGST Rules does not make electronic filing a condition of being heard, remitted the matter, and left the limitation and jurisdiction questions open.
13 min readThe Date on the Notice, Not the Date on the Form: Delhi High Court on Limitation Under Section 74(2) and 74(10) and Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07
Two writ petitions argued that a show cause notice and an order were time-barred because the electronic summary forms carried later dates. The Delhi High Court rejects the argument on the statute and Rule 142, and sends the fraud and ITC grounds to the appellate authority under Section 107.
13 min read