Case laws · TaxKatha

Punjab & Haryana High Court9 Sept 2026

For revenue

Dhull Earth Movers Co. v. Union of India

Where registered person deposited self-assessed tax belatedly and interest was demanded by authority without initiation of section 73 proceedings, waiver of interest under section 128A was not available since circular permitted waiver only where section 73 was invoked, and self-assessed tax interest liability under section 50 read with section 75(12) was directly recoverable with no scope for waiver in such cases. GST: Where petitioner sought waiver of interest for delayed deposit of self-assessed tax citing discrimination under Article 14, since benefit under waiver scheme applied only to disputed tax arising from section 73 proceedings and not to self-assessed tax, classification between disputed and self-assessed tax was valid, denial of waiver to petitioner was justified and Article 14 challenge was not sustainable

Punjab & Haryana High Court9 Sept 2026

For revenue

Dhull Earth Movers Co. v. Union of India

GSTAT Bengaluru25 Aug 2026

For revenue

Rodman Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Karnataka State GST, Bengaluru

Where excess ITC was availed for first time in December 2020 and demand under section 73 arose from such availment, assessee could not claim waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A merely by contending that disputed ITC pertained to earlier period 2018-19, as demand was outside temporal scope of section 128A

CGST S.128A

Madras High Court19 Aug 2026

For revenueRemanded

Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Where petitioner discharged entire admitted tax before notified date but missed prescribed time limit for amnesty scheme application seeking waiver of interest and penalty, such time limit is mandatory and not directory, yet, in interest of justice, due to full tax payment and revenue protection, ex parte order was set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration after granting reasonable opportunity

Madras High Court31 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Indian Bank v. Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise

Where petitioner with registrations in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra received a combined section 73 order and sought waiver of interest or penalty via single SPL-02 under section 128A(1)(b) after tax payment, proper officer could not decline jurisdiction for Maharashtra alone as same officer issued combined order and no statutory basis exists to split jurisdiction, requiring reconsideration

Madras High Court28 Jul 2026

For assessee

Incompressible Fluid Control System v. Assistant Commissioner

Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A was available where proceedings had been initiated under section 73 even in respect of self assessed tax arising from belated filing of GSTR 3B, non obstante clause in section 75(12) permitting direct recovery under section 79 could not exclude such cases from amnesty scheme once liability was determined under section 73 GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A having been accepted and Form GST SPL 05 issued, authorities could not subsequently declare such approval void by invoking section 161 except in contingencies specifically contemplated under Rule 164(16) or 164(17) GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being governed by mandatory timelines under Rule 164, belated filing of application or payment beyond prescribed period could not be condoned on basis of substantial compliance, and rejection of waiver claim was justified GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being subject to mandatory filing timelines under Rule 164, belated or non filing of application on plea of lack of knowledge of section 73 order could not be condoned, and writ petitions were liable to be dismissed

Madras High Court7 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

WFB Baird and Company India (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer I

Where SCN identified excess ITC claim due to mismatch in returns and did not allege fraud or suppression, proceeding should be under section 73, not section 74, as section 74's ingredients were absent, making assessment order unsustainable and requiring remand for a fresh decision under proper section with liberty for statutory reliefs

Madras High Court25 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Ayiswarya Polymers v. Assistant commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Where assessee discharged entire tax liability within statutory time but part of payment was mistakenly remitted under IGST head with no such liability, substantial compliance for waiver existed since full payment as per notice was made and rejection solely due to wrong head payment was unsustainable; matter required reconsideration with opportunity to rectify head-wise payment

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Zyvana Integrated Services (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Where petitioner disclosed outward supplies in GSTR-1 for certain periods but failed to discharge corresponding output tax through GSTR-3B on time, mere non-receipt of customer payments or lack of intent to evade tax could not alter statutory liability, but in light of section 128A and GST Council deliberations, such short payments warranted reconsideration under section 73 rather than section 74, hence matter required fresh decision accordingly

Every ruling, in plain sight.