GST Appellate Tribunal, Raipur28 September 2026

Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax

For assessee

The ruling in brief

Where scrutiny of e-way bills and subsequent proceedings led to disputed liability for two invoices, and Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief for one invoice (GST-1399) and sustained demand for another (GST-125), with respondent not challenging relief on GST-1399 before Tribunal, only GST-125 remained in controversy, leaving relief on GST-1399 undisturbed and outside Tribunal’s purview.

Where assessee, accused of duplicate e-way bill generation and non-payment, specifically requested a personal hearing and submitted defence, adjudicating authority confirmed demand without granting post-reply hearing or giving reasoned decision, such order violated statutory mandate for opportunity of hearing and duty to record reasons, hence original adjudication was vitiated for non-compliance with legal requirements.

Where dispute survived for single invoice with two e-way bills for same vehicle, non-cancellation was admitted and no primary records or evidence were produced to prove asserted system glitch, appellate proceedings could not cure breach of statutory personal hearing at original stage, warranting limited remand for fresh determination after affording statutory hearing and considering primary evidence.

Where demand was confirmed on duplicate e-way bills against same invoice with unpaid tax alleged, and cancellation of the second e-way bill was raised in appeal, reference by appellate authority to statutory cancellation mechanism did not introduce a new ground, since existence and non-use of cancellation window was relevant to assess appellant's defence of unintentional duplication.…

Provisions considered

Section 112 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 75 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 113, read with section 75, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 75 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 138 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 73, read with section 75, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 138 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Related rulings

GSTAT Hyderabad18 Sept 2026

For revenue

Mandalaneni Srinivasarao v. Sri Sai Traders

Where respondents' registrations were cancelled due to non-filing, and no timely revocation was sought, with appeals filed after expiry of both appeal period and condonable delay under Section 107, First Appellate Authority could not condone such delay beyond statutory limit, as equity and reliance on High Court orders cannot expand statutory appellate jurisdiction, making condonation ultra vires GST: Where department implemented impugned FAA orders by restoring GST registrations, and allowing respondents to file pending returns, any subsequent departmental appeal became infructuous as effective relief would disturb respondents’ restored status and commercial position, hence such appeals challenging condonation were deemed academic and not maintainable

GSTAT Hyderabad18 Sept 2026

For revenue

Timmasarti Venkateswara Rao v. Wildcurse Sourcing LLP

Where taxpayers filed appeals against suo motu cancellation of registration after expiry of both normal and outer condonable period, appellate authority relied on High Court Article 226 orders to condone delay, since statutory authority is bound by statute and cannot translocate extraordinary constitutional powers, condonation beyond statutory limit was ultra vires and orders were liable to be set aside GST: Where respondents complied with revocation orders and their registrations were restored, allowing them to resume returns filing, Department’s appeals against condonation became academic since legal position had changed and restoration was implemented, hence annulment would disturb settled rights and input tax credits, making appeals futile and not maintainable as matter had become infructuous

Delhi High Court14 Sept 2026

For assessee

Aakash Gupta v. Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal

Where penalty-only SCNs were issued prior to introduction of pre-deposit requirement for appeals, such pre-deposit condition could not apply retrospectively and GSTAT must entertain appeals in penalty-only cases arising from such SCNs without insisting on pre-deposit, ensuring appellate right was unaffected by whether first or second appeal was involved

Related rulings

GSTAT Hyderabad18 Sept 2026

For revenue

Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Mandalaneni Srinivasarao v. Sri Sai Traders

Timmasarti Venkateswara Rao v. Wildcurse Sourcing LLP

Aakash Gupta v. Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal

Read the full analysis