Case laws · TaxKatha

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

CGST S.107

GSTAT Hyderabad18 Sept 2026

For revenue

Mandalaneni Srinivasarao v. Sri Sai Traders

CGST S.107

Madras High Court18 Sept 2026

For assessee

Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. PSTS Logistics (P.) Ltd

Where bank accounts were provisionally attached by Commissioner in February 2022 and no interim orders were secured during writ appeals, such attachments lapsed automatically after one year as per legal precedent, rendering the appeals infructuous since authority could not renew the attachment in absence of enabling provision

GSTAT Lucknow18 Sept 2026

For assessee

R R Infrastructe Projects v. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Additional Commissioner, Grade II Appeal

Where appellant's demand for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch was confirmed ex parte despite appellant facing FIR, judicial custody, and fire incident affecting office, absence of proper opportunity before both adjudicating and appellate authorities warranted remand for fresh hearing in interest of natural justice GST: Where demand for ITC denial was raised solely on GSTR-2A mismatch without invoice-wise or category-wise verification, despite assessee providing reconciliation, RCM credits, and supplier/CA certificates, complete disallowance was unwarranted, and authorities were required to verify supporting evidence including RCM claims and certificates, necessitating reconsideration of ITC eligibility on merits GST: Where supplier issued invoices for renting of immovable property within State but discharged tax under IGST instead of CGST and SGST and appellant availed ITC under CGST and SGST with tax paid to Government, such ITC was correctly availed as supply was intra-State, with no revenue loss, and invoices remained eligible for ITC under CGST and SGST

GSTAT Agra17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jitendra Kumar v. R.V. Brick Field

Where survey at brick kilns revealed excess or unaccounted bricks and coal not recorded in books and persons present failed to produce documents, initiation of confiscation proceedings with penalty and fine under section 130 was impermissible, as proper procedure required tax determination as if supplied under section 35(6) read with sections 73 and 74, rendering confiscation unsustainable GST: Where excess or unaccounted stock found at respondents' brick kilns led to confiscation and penalty orders, and Commissioner (Appeals) quashed both confiscation and penalty due to lack of legal basis, revenue's appeals confined only to fine could not be sustained in absence of a surviving confiscation, rendering such appeals meritless and not maintainable

Andhra Pradesh High Court17 Sept 2026

For assessee

GSR Handlooms v. Assistant Commissioner ST

Where GST-registered assessee dealing in handloom sarees was subjected to a single composite summary assessment order covering multiple tax periods, such an order was not sustainable since a composite assessment across years is invalid, and fresh proceedings must be initiated separately for each assessment year

CGST S.73

GSTAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2026

For revenue

Md Qamaruddin Khan v. YRK Constructions

Where assessee's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B for six months and, upon filing all pending returns and taxes, revocation was allowed, FAA erred by not mandating recovery of interest, late fee and penalty, so penalty was imposed and revenue permitted to collect all ancillary dues in compliance with Rule 23(1)

Patna High Court17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Sanjeet Kumar Pandey @ Sanjeet Pandey v. Union of India

Where petitioner was arrested for allegedly orchestrating issuance and availment of fraudulent ITC through fake tax invoices, considering that charge sheet had been filed and investigation stood completed, petitioner was enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond and two sureties of like amount to satisfaction of ACJM

Uttarakhand High Court17 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Shivtara Developers v. State of Uttarakhand

Where adjudication order determining tax, interest and penalty was passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing, even though petitioner had not opted for personal hearing, once adverse decision was contemplated, obligation to provide personal hearing persisted, thus, impugned order was to be quashed and matter was to be reassessed after granting such opportunity

GSTAT Ghaziabad17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Prabhas Kumar v. Radico, Authorized Partners

Departmental appeal involving disputed tax of about Rs. 6.30 lakh was liable to dismissal at threshold, as Circulars dated 05-07-2024 and 22-05-2026 prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit and furthe, Revenue had failed to establish any exception; administrative authorisation could not override binding litigation policy

GSTAT Ghaziabad17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Raghvendra Vikram Singh v. Technomat Composheet (P.) Ltd

Where State Tax Department filed appeal against penalty order relating solely to e-way bill penalty of Rs. 88,074, since disputed penalty amount was below prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit and no recognised exception or reasoned exercise of residual power was shown, appeal was rightly dismissed at threshold for failing monetary limit and absence of case-specific justification

Delhi High Court17 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India

Where assessee availed ITC on purchases from suppliers whose registrations were cancelled prior to invoice dates and ITC was denied due to suppliers’ non- payment of tax, challenge to Section 16(2)(c) as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed, since Supreme Court upheld validity of provision which only requires recipient to establish deposit of tax by supplier; petitioner relegated to appellate remedy

Allahabad High Court17 Sept 2026

For revenue

Rizvi Builders and Supplier v. State of U.P

Where assessee paid entire tax voluntarily after notice alleging evasion and without demur, acceptance of liability confirmed all terms and allegations in notice, thus assessee remained liable to equal penalty and interest as per Section 74, subsequent show cause notices only computed sums, and voluntary deposit did not absolve penalty or interest, so writ petition challenging demand was not tenable

GSTAT Ghaziabad17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Devendra Singh v. Adroit Technical Services (P.) Ltd

Where department filed appeal where GST amount in dispute was only Rs. 1.99 lakh while monetary threshold limit set for filing appeal by relevant circulars is Rs. 20 lak, since Revenue failed to prove any exception that would allow a low-value claim to proceed, appeal was to be dismissed at threshold without adjudication on merits

GSTAT Ghaziabad17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Prashant Kumar Rai v. Highly Marelli Motherson Thermal Solution Private

Where Revenue filed appeal before GSTAT against quashing of IGST penalty of Rs. 5,78,160, same was held inadmissible as Circular No. 2425008 dated 5-7-2024 prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for departmental appeals and Revenue failed to establish that case fell within any specified exclusion or exception, consequently appeal was to be dismissed without adjudication on merits

Kerala High Court17 Sept 2026

For assessee

PBS Traders v. Assistant State Tax Officer

Where petitioner filed returns for months September 2018 to March 2019 within extended deadline permitted by Section 16(5), denial of Input Tax Credit solely on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable, and petitioner remained entitled to ITC subject to fulfilling other conditions, as interest liability for belated payment was not contested in proceedings

GSTAT Lucknow17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Ajit Kumar Minz v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd

Where manufacturer of edible oils re-filed differential ITC refund claims for same periods after remand due to changes in refund formula and satisfied substantive and procedural requirements under Section 54 and Rule 89, technically rejected supplementary claims were maintainable if within limitation, and technical objections could not override substantive entitlement, thus, appellate authority's grant of refund required no interference

Madras High Court17 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Safelane Agencies v. Superintendent of GST and C.Ex

Where assessment order and DRC-7 confirmed tax demand exceeding SCN and failed to account for IGST already belatedly paid via GSTR-3B with DRC-7 ignoring such appropriation, demand confirmation was beyond SCN scope and, subject to partial remittance by petitioner, assessment order was set aside for reconsideration post issue of fresh SCN. GST: Where petitioner sought cancellation of GST registration due to business discontinuation and authorities rejected application solely for outstanding tax demand, discontinuation constitutes a valid statutory ground for cancellation and outstanding dues can be recovered post-cancellation, so rejection solely on demand grounds was untenable and authorities must reconsider cancellation as per law

GSTAT Bengaluru16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Heramb Enterprises v. C Pushpalatha, Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Where goods were intercepted while being unloaded at third-party premises without valid invoice or e-way bill covering such movement and fresh e-way bill was generated only post-interception without evidence of technical glitch, conduct indicated intent to evade tax and absence of mandatory documents during transit amounted to wilful contravention, justifying imposition of penalty under detention provisions

GSTAT Ernakulam16 Sept 2026

For assessee

Tiger Steels v. Commissioner of State Tax

Where notice under section 129(3) was issued on 28-6-2019 but penalty order was passed only on 26-7-2019 after expiry of prescribed seven-day period, said time- limit was held mandatory and breach thereof vitiated entire proceedings, rendering adjudication void ab initio, thus, penalty order and appellate order were to be set aside with consequential relief

Andhra Pradesh High Court16 Sept 2026

For assessee

Venspra Impex v. Deputy Commissioner ST

Where petitioner received a single composite assessment order under section 74 covering multiple tax periods, such composite adjudication was impermissible as each tax period requires distinct notice and adjudication, making impugned consolidated assessment unsustainable, thus same was to be set aside with liberty to issue separate notices for each period

CGST S.74

Every ruling, in plain sight.