Case laws · TaxKatha

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

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

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

Chhattisgarh High Court14 Aug 2026

Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises v. State Bank of India

Where petitioner and respondent No.2 quoted identical rates for meal supply tender and petitioner's bid was rejected amid GST ambiguity, subsequent post-bid offer and allegations of delay or unpaid dues did not establish illegality, arbitrariness, or breach of tender terms, as judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring fairness and process, not to revisiting merits or contract disputes

Gujarat High Court14 Aug 2026

For assessee

Torrent Power Ltd. v. Union of India

Rule 28(2) prescribing 1% valuation for corporate guarantees was upheld, but the words “whichever is higher” were held arbitrary and unconstitutional; valuation must instead be based on actual consideration or the deemed 1% value, as applicable. GST: GST at deemed 1% valuation under Rule 28(2) could not be levied on corporate guarantees for periods before its insertion on 26-10-2023; such retrospective levy was harsh and unfair, though levy was permissible for periods thereafter, while guarantees to foreign subsidiaries were governed by Circular No. 225/19/2024-GST. GST: Corporate guarantees furnished by holding companies to banks for subsidiaries, even without consideration, constituted taxable supplies between related persons under Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule I; subsidiaries were recipients, and GST levy on such guarantees was upheld. GST: Execution of corporate guarantees by holding companies for subsidiaries, though without consideration, constituted “business” under Section 2(17) and Schedule I, as activities incidental or ancillary to trade include safeguarding subsidiaries’ financial interests; volume, continuity or profit motive was immaterial. GST: Corporate guarantees were not “actionable claims” excluded by Schedule III, as a guarantor’s liability is contingent and secondary, unlike a direct right to debt; hence, corporate guarantees remained taxable supplies under the GST provisions. GST: Execution of a corporate guarantee secured by a share pledge constituted a taxable supply, as the pledge merely secured performance of the guarantee…

Allahabad High Court3 Aug 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Sunny Enterprises v. Union of India

Where GST-registered person's registration was cancelled by a non-speaking order with no reasons or recorded satisfaction, such cancellation violated Article 14 and principles of natural justice and was unsustainable, therefore cancellation and consequential appellate order were quashed and matter was revived for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner

Supreme Court24 Jul 2026

For revenue

Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India

Where purchasing dealers challenged constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) on ground that ITC could not be denied for supplier's failure to deposit tax, since ITC is a statutory concession and section 41 permits re-availment of reversed ITC upon subsequent payment of tax by supplier, section 16(2)(c) was constitutionally valid and could not be read down

Karnataka High Court13 Jul 2026

For assessee

Dhariwal Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Where pan masala manufacturers using pouch machines were subjected to a monthly machine-wise cess based on maximum rated capacity under a single slab up to 500 pouches per minute, and abatement was restricted to stoppages exceeding fifteen days, such levy disregarded actual production, ignored genuine shorter shutdowns, created arbitrary classifications and was declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 14. GST: Where pan masala manufacturers challenged legislative competence of Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025 for levying cess on machines/processes, since taxable event was possession or operation of machines and not supply of goods or services, Parliament had power under Article 246(1) and Entry 97 List I to impose such cess, but manner of execution violated Article 14, rendering Act and Rules void

Every ruling, in plain sight.