Petitioner (Applicant)	Om Enterprises
Respondent	Additional Commissioner, Grade – 2 (Appeal) And Another
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Nov 13, 2025
Order No.	Writ Tax No. – 629 of 2023

A) Core issue

Whether goods can be detained and penalty under section 129(3) imposed when the e-way bill was not with the vehicle at the time of interception, but had in fact been generated before interception and was produced later in response to SCN.

(B) Key facts in simple words

• Goods dispatched from Bulandshahr on 21.12.2021 with tax invoice.
• E-way bill generated at 10:59 a.m.
• Vehicle intercepted at 11:29 a.m. – at that moment, the e-way bill was not physically/ digitally produced to the officer.
• Mobile squad detained goods and imposed penalty under Section 129(3).
• Appeal also failed.
• Before the seizure order, the assessee produced the e-way bill in reply to the SCN.

(C) Court’s reasoning

1. Timing is everything
   • The Court noted that the e-way bill existed before interception – the generation time (10:59) was earlier than the interception (11:29).
   • Therefore, substantive compliance with GST law (Section 68 + Rule 138) was already achieved.
2. Intention to evade tax is crucial
   • There was no material to show mala fide or intention to evade tax.
   • The only lapse was non-production at the spot, possibly due to a technical issue or practical difficulty.
3. Reliance on M/s OSR Creation
   • In OSR Creation, it was held that if the e-way bill is generated before detention and is produced before seizure, no adverse inference of evasion should be drawn.
   • The present case is aligned with that principle.
4. Distinguishing M/s Aysha Builders & Suppliers
   • In Aysha Builders, the e-way bill was generated after detention, which clearly indicated non-compliance at the relevant time.
   • Here, the distinguishing fact = pre-detention generation; hence Aysha Builders did not apply.
5. Result
   • Detention, seizure and penalty orders were quashed.
   • Amount deposited under those orders to be refunded as per law.

(D) Legal principles emerging

• If e-way bill is generated before interception and is later produced before seizure order →
  • Generally no penalty under Section 129(3) if:
    • Tax invoice exists,
    • Correct tax paid, and
    • No evidence of evasion intent.
• Distinction between:
  • Technical lapse in carrying/producing document, vs.
  • Substantive non-compliance / post-detention generation.

(E) Practical implications & suggestions

1. For drafting replies to SCN/appeal
   • Highlight exact timestamps of e-way bill generation vs interception.
   • Emphasize:
     • Tax invoice + tax fully paid.
     • E-way bill pre-existing and generated in ordinary course.
     • No change in consignee, value, or description.
   • Cite this judgment + OSR Creation and distinguish any case where the e-way bill was generated post-detention.
2. Documentation discipline
   • Always maintain:
     • System logs / screenshots of e-way bill generation time,
     • Server downtime evidence, if any,
     • Internal records showing that delay was technical/clerical.
3. Advisory to clients
   • Train clients and transporters:
     • Keep e-way bill ready and accessible (printout or mobile) before dispatch as far as possible.
     • However, where a genuine technical glitch occurs, this judgment is a strong shield.
4. Limitations
   • It is an Allahabad High Court decision –
     • Binding in UP,
     • Persuasive in other States; may or may not be followed by other HCs/authorities, but still very useful.

---

2.

Time limit for filing GST Appeal in Section 107(4) is not strictly mandatory. High Court directed Appellate Authority to re-evaluate the delay condonation request in appropriate cases.

Petitioner (Applicant)	Ashok Ghosh
Respondent	The State of West Bengal and OTHERS
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Nov 4, 2025
Order No.	MAT 82 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

(A) Core issue

Whether the time limit for filing appeal under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act is strictly mandatory (hard stop) or directory (flexible) so that the appellate authority can condone delay beyond the outer limit in appropriate cases.

(B) Background facts

• Order passed under Section 74 on 19.05.2022.
• Appellant filed appeal u/s 107(1) with a delay and request for condonation.
• Appellate authority refused to entertain, citing limitation under Section 107(4).
• Single Judge dismissed writ, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Singh Enterprises and Hongo India, which dealt with Central Excise Act and strictly interpreted limitation.
• On appeal, Division Bench examined whether those precedents automatically apply to GST.

(C) Court’s reasoning

1. Different statutory scheme under GST
   • The Court examined Section 107 in light of:
     • The structure and objectives of GST law, and
     • Earlier Division Bench decisions (e.g., S.K. Chakraborty, Ram Kumar Sinhal).
2. Section 107(4) as “directory” in appropriate cases
   • Earlier Division Bench held that the time limit is not always rigid, and delay may be condoned where:
     • There is a proper, genuine explanation, and
     • No gross negligence or mala fide.
3. Effect of Supreme Court stay on S.K. Chakraborty
   • The State argued: S.K. Chakraborty is under challenge in Supreme Court.
   • Court clarified:
     • A stay does not wipe out its precedential value for other parties;
     • It only stays its operation between the parties to that case.
4. Rejection of “blind copy–paste” of Excise precedents
   • Singh Enterprises and Hongo India were based on different statutes (Central Excise/Customs) with their own context.
   • GST is a new regime, with its own objectives and interpretational approach.
   • Hence, those judgments cannot automatically control interpretation of Section 107.
5. Outcome
   • Division Bench set aside the appellate authority’s order.
   • Directed it to re-examine delay condonation on merits, allowing both parties to place materials.
   • Did not say “all delay must be condoned”, only that statutory bar is not absolute.

(D) Legal principles emerging

• Appellate authority has discretion to condone delay beyond the normal limit in Section 107(4) in appropriate and justified cases.
• The limitation provision is treated more as directory, not absolutely mandatory.
• What matters:
  • Cogent explanation,
  • Good faith,
  • No deliberate delay to frustrate revenue.

(E) Practical implications & suggestions

1. For delayed appeals
   • This judgment is extremely useful where:
     • Appeal is filed after the usual limitation + condonable period under Section 107(4).
   • In condonation application, you should:
     • Provide detailed chronology (dates, events).
     • Explain cause of delay: illness, Covid, system issues, wrong legal advice, etc.
     • Prove continued bona fide conduct (e.g., earlier reply to SCN, partial deposits, correspondence).
2. Drafting strategy
   • Cite:
     • This decision of Calcutta HC,
     • S.K. Chakraborty & Ram Kumar Sinhal line of judgments,
     • Distinguish Singh Enterprises and Hongo India as relating to Excise/Customs.
   • Emphasize principles of substantial justice, especially if huge demand and denial of appeal would be harsh.
3. Advisory to clients
   • Still tell clients: “Don’t rely on condonation – file within time.”
   • Treat this judgment as a safety valve, not as a routine practice.
4. Limitations
   • Directly binding only in West Bengal (and for authorities under Calcutta HC).
   • Persuasive elsewhere – different High Courts may differ (some HCs follow strict limitation).

---

3.

Personal Hearing before passing an Adverse GST Order is Must unless TaxPayer Knowingly Waives his Right: High Court Latest Ruling

Petitioner (Applicant)	Jagjit Enterprises Private Ltd., Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Harmeet Mann
Respondent	State Of U.P. & OTHERS
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Oct 17, 2025
Order No.	Writ Tax No. – 1159 of 2025

(A) Core issue

Whether an order under Section 73 of U.P. GST Act passed without granting personal hearing (only written reply taken on record) is valid, when the taxpayer never waived their right to such hearing.

(B) Key facts

• Assessment order u/s 73 passed on 31.12.2023.
• No date for personal hearing was fixed.
• Appeal order dated 23.09.2025 also did not cure this defect.
• Petitioner argued violation of Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice.
• Standing Counsel admitted that no personal hearing date was fixed.

(C) Court’s reasoning

1. Section 75(4) – statutory mandate
   • Section 75(4) clearly states that an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated.
   • This is not a mere formality – it is procedural safeguard.
2. Reference to Mahaveer Trading Company
   • In Mahaveer Trading Company, the Court had already highlighted:
     • Serious lapses by authorities in not granting hearings.
     • Strict need to follow Section 75(4).
   • Commissioner had issued Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024, reminding officers to strictly follow these requirements.
3. Hearing can be waived, but only knowingly
   • The Court clarified two exceptional scenarios:
     • (a) Noticee clearly waives personal hearing.
     • (b) Hearing is fixed, but the noticee fails to appear despite opportunity.
   • Outside these, authority cannot bypass hearing.
4. Mere written reply is not enough
   • Filing a written reply does not amount to waiver of personal hearing.
   • Oral hearing is often needed to clarify facts, explain documents, and respond to officer’s doubts.
5. Outcome
   • Both assessment order (31.12.2023) and appellate order (23.09.2025) were quashed.
   • Matter remanded to assessing authority to pass fresh order after proper personal hearing.

(D) Legal principles emerging

• Opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory before passing adverse orders under GST where demanded or not waived.
• Authorities cannot treat written reply as substitute for hearing.
• Failure to grant hearing = serious procedural defect, making order liable to be struck down.

(E) Practical implications & suggestions

1. For existing orders passed without hearing
   • Strong ground to challenge assessment/orders if:
     • No hearing date was ever fixed, and
     • No clear written waiver from taxpayer.
   • You can file appeal/writ highlighting violation of Section 75(4) and this judgment.
2. During ongoing proceedings
   • Always demand personal hearing in writing in reply to SCN.
   • If no date is given and order is passed straightaway, you have a solid ground to challenge.
3. Advisory to clients
   • Tell clients not to casually say “no personal hearing required”.
   • Encourage them to attend hearings and keep:
     • A copy of hearing notice,
     • A brief written submission tendered in hearing,
     • Record of any adjournment etc.
4. For departmental officers (if you advise them)
   • Always:
     • Fix a hearing date,
     • Record attendance / non-attendance,
     • Mention in the order that hearing was given/waived.
   • This protects the order from being quashed on procedural grounds.

---

Combined Summary & Your Takeaways

1. Trend of Courts in GST

All three decisions show a common judicial trend:

• Courts are protective of bona fide taxpayers where:
  • Compliance is substantively done (e-way bill pre-generated, taxes paid).
  • Delay in filing appeal is not mala fide and is properly explained.
  • Procedural safeguards like personal hearing are ignored by authorities.
• Courts dislike hyper-technical penalties and procedural shortcuts by the department, especially where no revenue loss is shown.

2. How you can practically use these cases

(a) In E-way bill disputes / vehicle interceptions

• Use Om Enterprises (and OSR Creation) when:
  • E-way bill is generated before interception but not produced at spot.
• Strategy:
  • Stress time stamps + lack of evasion + existence of tax invoice.
  • Argue: ‘technical lapse, not tax evasion’.

(b) For delayed appeals under Section 107

• Use Ashok Ghosh to request condonation beyond outer limit where you have genuine reasons.
• Give a detailed narrative of delay and attach evidence: medical records, technical issues, etc.
• Use as persuasive authority even outside West Bengal.

(c) For orders without personal hearing

• Use Jagjit Enterprises Pvt Ltd where:
  • No hearing date was fixed;
  • You never waived hearing;
  • Only written reply was taken.
• Argue that order is void for breach of Section 75(4) and natural justice.

3. My suggestions for your practice

1. Develop standard checklists for:
   • Vehicle detention cases (documents to collect, standard arguments based on Om Enterprises).
   • Condonation applications (standard skeleton based on Ashok Ghosh).
   • Natural justice challenges (points based on Jagjit + Mahaveer Trading).
2. Keep a case-law tracker
   • State-wise GST decisions (Allahabad, Calcutta, etc.).
   • Tag each by issue: e-way bill, limitation/appeals, personal hearing, ITC denial, etc.
   • That will help you quickly quote correct HC depending on client’s State.
3. Educate clients
   • Short, simple one-page notes / WhatsApp bulletins:
     • “Why personal hearing is your right under GST”
     • “What to do if your vehicle is stopped and e-way bill has some problem”
     • “Did you miss appeal time? There may still be hope – but act fast.”
4. Always combine law + facts
   • Courts are most convinced when:
     • Facts show sincerity,
     • Law supports relief, and
     • You are not defending deliberate non-compliance.