Case laws · TaxKatha

GSTAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2026

For revenue

Sri Parameshwara Bricks v. State Tax Officer

Where brick manufacturer under composition scheme exceeded aggregate turnover threshold during year as determined after excluding typographical errors, composition option ceased from date turnover limit was crossed and liability to pay tax at regular rate arose only on supplies made after such date with due credit for composition tax already paid, requiring no interference in figures so determined. GST: Where assessee composition taxpayer issued invoices without separate GST and department confirmed differential tax after audit, section 10(4) barred separate tax collection so invoices reflected total consideration inclusive of tax, requiring computation of differential tax on cum-tax basis under Rule 35, with benefit extended even if not specifically claimed and differential tax, interest and penalty to be recomputed accordingly

GSTAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2026

For revenue

Sri Parameshwara Bricks v. State Tax Officer

AAR Gujarat4 Aug 2026

For revenue

Chehar Industry (P.) Ltd., In re

Where manufacturer-trader produces bar or cake form laundry soaps for cleaning clothes and textiles, these products, not being toilet soaps as per composition and use, are classifiable as laundry soaps under sub-heading 34011 and attract 18 percent GST under Entry No. 66 of Schedule-II of Notification No.09/2025-Central Tax (Rate), dated 17-09-2025

AAR Gujarat4 Aug 2026

For assessee

Lab Medica Systems (P.) Ltd., In re

Where applicant is engaged in supply of Ophthalmic Binocular Surgical Microscope and WHO Priority Medical Devices Information System describes same as electrically powered ophthalmic magnification instrument designed for use during ophthalmic surgical procedures, product is classifiable under Tariff Heading 9018 and covered by Entry No. 483 of Schedule I of Notification No. 09/2025 Central Tax (Rate), attracting GST at 5 per cent

AAR Tamil Nadu21 Jul 2026

Symphony Polymers (P.) Ltd., In re

Where compostable bags and packing materials are manufactured from polymer materials including PLA and PBAT, such products are classifiable under Chapter 39 as plastics and articles thereof and more specifically under Heading 3923 2990, and are not covered under Entry 319 relating to paper sacks, bags and biodegradable bags

AAAR West Bengal10 Jul 2026

For revenue

Indian Wire Products Company, In re

Supply of tobacco based hookah flavours as well as herbal (non-tobacco- based) hookah flavours through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant does not fall within ambit of paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to GST Acts merely because such supplies are made in conjunction with food, beverages and other restaurant facilities; consequently, such supplies are not classifiable as restaurant service under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) but are to be treated as supplies of goods and taxed in accordance with applicable classification and relevant rate notifications

AAAR West Bengal2 Jul 2026

For revenue

Navya Electric Vehicle (P.) Ltd., In re

CKD/SKD supplies of e-rickshaw components could qualify for classification as complete electrically operated vehicles under Rule 2(a) of General Rules for Interpretation only where all essential components were supplied together as an identifiable kit and contemporaneous records consistently established CKD/SKD supply; absent such evidence, goods were classifiable as parts

CGST S.9

AAAR West Bengal2 Jul 2026

For assessee

Om Jai Balajee Construction (P.) Ltd., In re

Where assessee traded in sun-cured tobacco leaves procured from farmers and supplied them as such after grading, bundling, and butting, with no process altering leaf character, such supplies remained tobacco leaves under Heading 2401, regardless of curing stage, and were classifiable as tobacco leaves attracting 2.5 per cent CGST and 2.5 per cent SGST

CGST S.9

Madras High Court15 Jun 2026

For assessee

Guru and Co. v. Union of India

GST notifications under Sections 9 and 11 must conform to GST Council recommendations; addition of phrase “enforceable right in court of law” for taxing unregistered pulse brands exceeded Council’s 21st meeting recommendation and was held ultra vires, violating cooperative federalism. GST: GST Council has power only to recommend under Article 279A and lacks any express or implied power of ratification; purported ratification in 22nd meeting could not validate notifications levying tax issued beyond its recommendations, as ratification cannot cure an act which is void ab initio

Madras High Court1 Jun 2026

For assessee

Renganathan & Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

Where petitioner, a tobacco trader, only sprinkled jaggery water, shade dried and bulked raw tobacco without altering its essential character, such activity did not amount to manufacture and product remained unmanufactured tobacco classifiable under CETH 2401 20 90, not under 2403 99 10 or 2403 99 90; thus, higher cess was not applicable

CGST S.9

Every ruling, in plain sight.