Note: Limited judgments are taken for consideration, since several issues in other judgments are either resolved or they are rendered redundant. Several of these judgments are interim orders and final orders are yet to be decided. Before relying on any of the above judgments, kindly verify the final status of each and every judgment.

1. Ajith A. R. vs. STO, Trivandrum: W.P. (C) NO. 16378 OF 2018 , 23rd May 2018, Kerala High Court.

Citing an identical matter disposed off by the Division Bench CTO vs. Madhu M.B. [2017, adjudication as per Sec. 129 of GST of goods seized/detained must be completed expeditiously (within one week for the present case). If the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1), then the goods must be released immediately.

2. M/s. Modern Pipe Industries vs. State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Writ Tax No. - 583 of 2017, 24/08/2017

No penal action for late filing of GST Returns and payment of tax where Assessee being a Partnership Firm was registered on GSTN as sole proprietor. Department was directed make arrangements to issue necessary GST ID/ pass word in the name of partnership firm within a period of two weeks and the registration certificate be corrected within a week thereafter.

3. Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association Vs. Union Of India And Ors (Rajasthan High Court) Civil Writ Petition No. 15239/2017: 20/09/2017

No penal interest, late fee, and prosecution for those who could not apply under composition Scheme upto 16-8-2017, their applications will be accepted and if their case does not fall under composition log-in, they will send it by email and their applications will be accepted w.e.f. 
1-7-2017.

4. GatiKintetsu Express (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax of MP (MP High Court) W.P. NO. 12399 of 2018 dt. July, 5th 2018:

Filing part-B of the e-Way bill is mandatory under the provisions of the GST Act. The explanation that the part-B of the e-Way bill could not be updated due to a technical error was not accepted since the option for raising grievances on the portal in such case was not availed by the assessee. Since part-B is mandatory under the Act, not updating the same was a violation by the Petitioner.

5. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court) W.P. (C) No. 7459/2017 dt. 25/08/2017:

In an interim order, the Court was of the view that to the extent the Petitioner had already paid Clean Energy Cess under Finance Act, 2010 on the stocks of coal at his disposal, they will not be liable to make any further payment of Compensation Cess. As regards, payment which was already made in terms of the GST Act, the same wld be subjo the final adjudication by the Court. However, on those stocks for which petitioner did not have satisfactory proof of already having paid Clean Energy Cess, the tax would have to be paid. The actual challenge about Constitutional validity of GST (Compensation to States Act) is still pending.

6. Mohd. Yunush vs. UP (Allahabad High Court) Writ – C No. 6392 of 2018 dated April 13, 2018:

Recovery of GST can be made as arrears of land revenue by the Collector of the District when requisitioned by the “Proper Officer” as defined in the Section-2(91) of the CGST/SGST.

7. Builders Association of Navi Mumbai and Others vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court ) Writ Petition No.12194 of 2017 dated 28th March 2018:

The transaction of levying one-time lease premium for letting plots of land on a long term lease basis is held to be liable to tax under GST. Such a transaction held as a taxable supply and not covered by the exclusion as ‘sale of land’.

8. Padmavati Enterprise vs. Union of India WP(L) No 424 of 2018

In this order, the Government was admonished for several glitches in the GST Portal. They were directed to resolve issues speedily. Date of filing complaint with Grievance and Redressal Committee was extended.

9. Mandan Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench)

Petition challenging vires of Rule 117 of CGST/SGST Rules to the extent it imposes time limit of 180 days on filing of Tran-1, admitted. Final hearing on 08-08-2018.

10. Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka vs. Union of India (Calcutta High Court) CRM No 3327 and 3328 of 2018.

Power of Arrest under CGST/SGST Act under Section 69 was discussed by the Hon’ble Court. Petitioner was arrested under the above section for issuing fake invoices and claiming ITC. It was held that While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of the accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State and others similar consideration are required to be taken into consideration.

However since the nature of the offence was compoundable, bail was granted with a condition precedent of personal guarantee bond of ₹ 50,00,000/- per accused and deposit ₹ 39 crore as pre deposit before Investigating Authority. Petitioner was also directed to appear before the authorities concerned and co-operate in the investigation proceedings.

11. CASTOR AND PULLOX vs. CCE, (Central Tax) (Bombay High Court) WP- 1027 of 2018.

Petitioner contended that proper construction of Schedule Entry 102 of Notification 2 of 2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017, the product of the Petitioner ‘Dog food’ ought to be cleared under the Customs Act 1962 would be exempt from payment of IGST. Petition admitted by the Hon’ble Court.