Goods and Services Tax

GST appeal delay condoned due to portal access issues, matter remanded on deposit of Rs 15,000 costs
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that dismissal of the petitioners' appeal as time-barred was unsustainable in view of technical difficulties in accessing adjudication orders on the GST portal, particularly where the order was uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab. Relying on similar precedents, HC directed that the petitioners be accorded identical treatment and that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits, on the condition that the petitioners deposit Rs. 15,000/- with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks and produce the receipt before the Appellate Authority. Upon such compliance, the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 shall stand rendered ineffective. Petition disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Refund of unutilised GST Compensation Cess ITC on coal for zero-rated exports allowed; Section 11(2) proviso inapplicable
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that unutilised input tax credit of GST Compensation Cess paid on coal, used in manufacture of goods exported on payment of IGST as zero-rated supplies, is refundable. It reiterated that when zero-rated supplies are made with payment of IGST, and no Compensation Cess is leviable on the finished goods, the assessee cannot utilise the input tax credit of such Cess. Consequently, the bar under the proviso to Section 11(2) of the relevant enactment is inapplicable. The HC quashed and set aside the impugned rejection orders and directed the revenue authorities to process the refund applications of the petitioner-assessee and sanction the claimed refund of unutilised Compensation Cess credit. Petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Supplying fitted assets on hire treated as mixed supply, taxable at 18% GST under serial no.17(viii).
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant's activity of supplying fitted assets on hire to occupants of a building constitutes leasing or renting services, as the applicant remains the legal owner and only grants access to utilities without transfer of possession. The installed assets, having become integral to the building, lose their character as movable goods; therefore, the supply is not leasing or renting of goods. The various services provided through machines and systems for a single consolidated per sq. ft. charge do not reveal any naturally bundled elements or principal supply and are therefore characterized as a mixed supply. Consequently, the transaction falls under serial no. 17(viii) of the relevant rate notification and is liable to GST at 18%.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

AAR: Training services to state-controlled society taxable; Entry 72, Entry 3B exemptions inapplicable; full ITC allowed
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that services rendered by the applicant to the recipient-society are not exempt under Entry 72 of Notif. No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) because the recipient, though under administrative control and funding of the State, is a separate legal entity registered as a society and cannot be treated as the Central/State Government or a Government Department. It may at best qualify as a Governmental Authority/Entity, but the training, skill development and capacity-building services supplied do not fall within the limited categories exempted under Entry 3B of Notif. No. 13/2023-CT (Rate). Consequently, the supplies are taxable. As a corollary, AAR held the applicant is entitled to full ITC on GST charged by subcontractors for such services, subject to satisfaction of statutory conditions under the CGST Act and Rules.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST exemption for solid waste management to Governmental Authority under Entry 3B of Notification 12/2017-CT (Rate)
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant's activities of collection, handling, storage, transportation, processing, bundling and final disposal of non-recyclable plastic waste supplied to a State-owned company (CKCL) constitute “solid waste management” services. AAR further held that CKCL, being a public limited company with 100% equity owned and controlled by the State Government through the Local Self-Government Department and entrusted with municipal solid waste management and sanitation functions under Art. 243W, qualifies as a “Governmental Authority” under GST law. Consequently, the services supplied by the applicant to CKCL are covered under Entry 3B of N/N. 12/2017-CT (Rate) as amended by N/N. 13/2023-CT (Rate) and are exempt from GST.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST AAR: advances not time of supply; single tax invoice, receipt vouchers only under s12(2)(a), s31(3)(d), Rules 46/50
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that, for supplies of goods, time of supply for a registered person not under composition is mandatorily determined under s.12(2)(a) CGST Act, as modified by Notif. 66/2017, i.e., on the earlier of the date of issue of invoice or the last date on which the invoice is required to be issued, and not on the date of receipt of advance. The applicant is not permitted to issue multiple tax invoices for a single supply of a boat against successive advances. For advances, only a receipt voucher under s.31(3)(d) r/w Rule 50 may be issued; a single tax invoice under Rule 46 must be issued at the time of supply, and the e-way bill must reflect the full value of the boat against this invoice. Credit notes cannot be used to nullify earlier advance invoices, as such invoices are not permissible in law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Educational institution status confirmed; HDC & BM and JDC course fees fully exempt from GST under Entry 66(a).
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant qualifies as an “educational institution” under the relevant GST exemption notification, as it imparts structured education through prescribed curriculum, qualified faculty, and formal evaluation leading to diplomas recognized under Kerala Co-operative Law. The services rendered by the applicant to its students enrolled in HDC & BM and JDC courses constitute educational services provided by an educational institution to its students, faculty, and staff. Consequently, such supplies fall squarely within Entry 66(a) of the applicable exemption notification. The consideration received as course fees is therefore exempt from GST. AAR accordingly ruled that the applicant's educational services for these courses are fully GST-exempt.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST on Joint Development: entry 5(b) Schedule II makes TDR and landowner flat share taxable construction services
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the Joint Development Agreement between the developer and landowner constitutes a “supply” of services under the CGST Act, as per entry 5(b) of Schedule II. The developer's construction of residential flats for the landowner, in consideration of transfer of development rights (TDR), is taxable as construction service. As the project is not an affordable residential project, GST at 5% (without ITC) is applicable on the landowner's share of flats, with taxable value determined on the open market value of similar flats sold to independent buyers around the date of transfer of development rights. Further, the landowner's TDR to the developer is a taxable service at 18%, with GST on unsold units payable by the developer under RCM on completion/first occupation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST payable on recruitment exam fees by governmental authority; application charges treated as taxable recruitment services, registration mandatory
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant, a recruitment board constituted under State legislation, qualifies as a “governmental authority” but its activities of conducting recruitment examinations for Devaswom Boards do not relate to functions entrusted to Panchayats or Municipalities under the Constitution and therefore do not fall within the relevant GST exemption entries. The services of conducting examinations and related recruitment activities constitute taxable “supply of services” for consideration, as the application/examination fee is a quid pro quo for allowing participation in the selection process and associated administrative services. Consequently, GST is payable on such fees at the rate applicable to recruitment/placement services. The applicant is required to obtain GST registration once its aggregate value of taxable supplies crosses the statutory threshold or otherwise falls within mandatory registration categories.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST payable on skill training fees; no exemption under Entries 66, 69 of Notification 12/2017, ITC allowed per Section 16
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant's share of fees received from skill training partners and fees collected from its own training institutes are liable to GST. The receipts do not qualify for exemption under Entry 69 or Entry 66 of Notif. No. 12/2017-CT(R), as the outsourced training partners are not shown to be NSDC/SSC approved, the courses are not NSQF/NCVET or statute-recognized, and the applicant is not an “educational institution” within para 2(y). Exemption under Sl. No. 4 is also denied as the services are not municipal functions under Art. 243W. On ITC, AAR declined a specific ruling for lack of factual detail but clarified that ITC cannot be denied merely because inputs are funded from a Government grant, subject to s.16 CGST Act conditions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Self-drive car rentals held leasing under Heading 9973, Entry 17(viia); not transfer of right to use
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant's activity of providing self-drive passenger vehicles (without driver) on rent is classifiable under Heading 9973 as “leasing or rental services without operator,” specifically under residual Service Code 997329 concerning other goods. It does not qualify as “transfer of the right to use goods” under Entry 17(iii) of Notif. No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) as the lessee does not obtain exclusive possession and effective control; the owner retains significant control through GPS tracking, contractual restrictions, and right to intervene. Consequently, Entry 17(iii) is inapplicable. AAR ruled that the service is covered by Entry 17(viia) (leasing or renting of goods) and not by residual Entry 17(viii). The applicable GST rate is that leviable on the supply of like goods.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST AAR: Reverse charge on residential rent to registered employer, no ITC due to exempt employee housing under s17(2)/2(47)
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that renting of residential dwellings by unregistered landlords to the applicant, a registered entity, constitutes a taxable supply of services to the applicant under GST. The employer-employee relationship applies only between the applicant and its employees, not between the landlords and the applicant; therefore, the exemption for residential dwelling services is inapplicable. Consequently, GST is payable by the applicant under the Reverse Charge Mechanism on rent paid to unregistered landlords. Further, AAR held that, in view of s.17(2) read with s.2(47), the applicant is not eligible to claim ITC on GST paid under reverse charge, as the corresponding outward supply to employees is an exempt supply.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

S tax cuts, lower interest rates to drive consumption
GST
Dated:- 24-11-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Nov 24 (PTI) S&P Global Ratings on Monday projected India's economy to grow 6.5 per cent in the current fiscal year and 6.7 per cent in the next, saying tax cuts and monetary policy easing will give a boost to consumption-driven growth.
India's real gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to have grown at the fastest pace in five quarters at 7.8 per cent in the April to June period of current fiscal year. The official data for Q2 (July-September) GDP growth estimates is scheduled to be released on November 28.
“We anticipate that India's GDP will grow by 6.5 per cent in fiscal year 2026 (ending March 2026) and 6.7 per cent in fiscal

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

tment, in this fiscal year, and the next,” S&P added.
The Government in Budget for 2025-26 fiscal year has hiked I-T rebate to Rs 12 lakh, from Rs 7 lakh, which gave tax relief of Rs 1 lakh crore to the middle class.
Besides, the RBI in June had cut key policy rates by 50 basis points to a 3-year low of 5.5 per cent.
Further, effective September 22 the GST rates on about 375 items were slashed making mass consumption items cheaper.
S&P further said the spike in the effective US tariff on India is weighing on the expansion of export-oriented manufacturing in the country.
But there are signs the US may lower tariffs on Indian products.
“The US's new approach to trade policy is causing governments and firms to spend time and money

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Penalty under s.74 CGST reduced where tax and interest pre-paid; proceedings end on 15% penalty payment
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined levy of penalty under s.74 CGST Act where tax with interest was paid prior to issuance of SCN. HC noted the distinction between s.74(5) and s.74(8), holding that on payment of tax, interest and 15% penalty after notice under s.74(1) read with s.74(3), further proceedings stand terminated. In this case, the petitioner had already discharged tax and interest pursuant to summons, and the subsequent demand-cum-SCN under s.74(1) yielded a maximum penalty of Rs. 19,000/-. HC held that relegating the petitioner to appeal would be unjustified. HC directed that on deposit of 15% of the penalty within four weeks, the impugned order shall stand quashed qua the petitioner alone, with no benefit extended to other noticees. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Writ challenging DGGI bank account attachment dismissed for concealment; petitioner directed to pursue Rule 159(5) remedy.
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging attachment of the petitioner's bank account by DGGI, holding that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice was untenable. The HC observed that the petitioner had deliberately concealed material facts, including the ongoing DGGI investigation and details of fraudulently availed ITC, despite having full knowledge thereof, thereby disentitling it to discretionary relief under Article 226. The Court noted that the proper statutory remedy was available under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Act, permitting objections to the freezing order before the Department. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-, to be deposited within two weeks with the HC Staff Welfare Fund.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Prior GST deposits overlooked; penalty under S.73 CGST Act to be reconsidered, appeal allowed without further pre-deposit
Case-Laws
GST
HC noted that the Petitioner had deposited over Rs. 2.01 crores prior to issuance of the SCN for GST registration cancellation, and that this crucial aspect was not properly considered by the adjudicating or appellate authority, indicating a lapse in adjudication. HC observed that, in terms of S.73 CGST Act, penalties on the Petitioner's directors may not be sustainable and the penalty on the Petitioner entity requires reconsideration in light of prior payments. As the GST Appellate Tribunal is now functional, HC directed the Petitioner to file an appeal thereagainst by 25.12.2025, to be heard on merits without dismissal for delay and without any further pre-deposit. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Ex parte CGST order set aside; matter remanded on costs to ensure fresh adjudication on merits
Case-Laws
GST
HC addressed a challenge to an ex parte Order-in-Original passed pursuant to show cause notices under the CGST regime, where the petitioner neither replied nor attended the personal hearing, citing serious medical condition of the proprietor. While noting that the petitioner was duly served and granted repeated opportunities, HC accepted that the matter warranted adjudication on merits to uphold principles of natural justice. Following its earlier approach in a similar case, HC remanded the matter conditionally. The impugned Order-in-Original was set aside subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks. Upon such payment, the adjudicating authority shall reconsider the case afresh. Writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST demand enhanced beyond SCN set aside for violating Sections 73 and 75(7); fresh action permitted
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the tax and penalty demand under s.73 of the GST Act was illegally enhanced from Rs. 5,11,145.80 in the SCN to Rs. 38,60,604/- in the impugned order, in contravention of s.75(7), which bars adjudication beyond the scope and quantum specified in the SCN. Relying on a prior Division Bench ruling on identical facts, the HC reiterated that absence of proper opportunity, coupled with an excessive demand beyond the SCN, vitiates the adjudication. Finding the impugned orders unsustainable in law, the HC quashed the demand and consequential orders in their entirety. The writ petition filed by M/s X was accordingly allowed, with liberty to the department, if so advised, to proceed strictly in accordance with law and within the limits of the original SCN.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST on manpower supply includes lockdown wage reimbursements; no exemption from labour memo under CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's supply of manpower to a Govt. space research centre constitutes “manpower recruitment and supply services” and is a taxable supply under the CGST Act. Interim payments made by the recipient to outsourced workers during the COVID-19 lockdown, pursuant to contractual arrangements, form part of the consideration for such taxable services. The subsequent disbursement of the entire amount to workers does not alter the taxability or reduce the taxable value. The office memorandum treating contractual/outsourced staff as “on duty” during lockdown and directing continued payment of wages is a labour-protection measure and does not create any GST exemption. As no specific exemption applies, GST is payable on the full consideration, and the applicant must regularise the corresponding tax liability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

SCN under GST Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 quashed due to internal lapse, matter remanded for hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC, dealing with a challenge to extension of limitation for issuance of SCN and vires of N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax and N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax, noted that the issue of validity of the notifications is pending before SC in a related batch. In the present matter, the Petitioner, a stock broker, asserted that the SCN dated 30.05.2024 never came to its knowledge due to an internal lapse by its accountant, resulting in no reply being filed. HC held that, in these circumstances, neither the SCN nor the consequent demand can be sustained. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after personal hearing on a fixed date. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ITC allowed only on June 2022 rent under S.16(4); invoices breaching R.47 invalid, S.97(2) limits scope
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant is entitled to avail ITC only on GST paid on rent for June 2022, subject to compliance with the time limit prescribed under S.16(4) CGST Act. It was determined that invoices pertaining to periods when the landlord was unregistered do not constitute valid tax invoices for ITC, as the supplier lacked registration and such invoices were also issued beyond the time limit stipulated in R.47 CGST Rules. Consequently, ITC on those invoices is inadmissible. On the query whether availment of such ITC would invite audit or departmental scrutiny, AAR declined to answer, holding it outside the scope of S.97(2) CGST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Seizure of Transporter's Vehicle for E-Way Bill Mismatch Quashed; No Evidence of Tax Evasion Under Section 129 GST
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined the seizure of a vehicle and goods due to a mismatch between the consignment and the e-way bill, where the petitioner acted solely as a transporter. HC noted that authorities had already held the goods to belong to the consignor and released them, and no finding existed that the petitioner was engaged in purchase or sale of goods or had any intent to evade tax. The discrepancy was explained as a human error by labourers during loading. In absence of adverse material against the transporter, HC held that seizure of the vehicle and initiation of proceedings were unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and the petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Penalty for e-way bill lapse restricted to s.129(1)(a) U.P. GST; wrong s.129(1)(b) order quashed and recomputation directed
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that, in a case of goods transported without an accompanying e-way bill, only penalty under s.129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was legally permissible. The Adjudicating Authority had erroneously imposed penalty under s.129(1)(b). Relying on its earlier precedent in a similar matter, HC found no other factual dispute warranting further pleadings and, with consent of parties, decided the writ at admission stage. The impugned order dated 25.10.2025 was quashed and set aside. Revenue authorities were directed to recompute and impose penalty strictly in accordance with s.129(1)(a) within three weeks. The writ petition filed by M/s X against State authorities was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Search and seizure SCNs upheld; Section 61 objections and procedural defects to be raised before adjudicating authority
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld the validity of the impugned SCNs issued pursuant to search and seizure conducted at the premises of the petitioner, despite allegations of irregular seizure without a proper panchanama and inadequate documentation. The HC held that objections regarding non-compliance with statutory provisions, including Section 61, procedural infirmities in search and seizure, and alleged denial of adequate opportunity, are matters to be urged before the adjudicating authority in the pending proceedings. Reiterating its earlier order permitting withdrawal of a prior writ to pursue assessment remedies, the HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to raise all factual and legal grounds in its reply to the SCNs.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Section 54 CGST and Rule 89(1A) timelines directory; Centre cannot retain IGST wrongly paid under bona fide mistake
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that Section 54 CGST Act and Rule 89(1A) CGST Rules are directory, not mandatory, for refund of tax wrongly paid under a bona fide mistake regarding the nature of supply. Since payment of IGST to Central authorities and subsequent correct payment to State authorities were undisputed, retention of IGST by the Centre would offend Article 265 and principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. HC set aside the impugned orders of respondent no. 3 rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, and expressly held that the refund application was within limitation. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 3 to reconsider and pass a reasoned order on the merits of the refund claim in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =