Goods and Services Tax

BengalÂ’s GST collections rise 12pc in July; state outpaces Jharkhand, Odisha in monthly growth
GST
Dated:- 1-8-2025
PTI
Kolkata, Aug 1 (PTI) West Bengal reported a robust 12 per cent year-on-year growth in gross Goods and Services Tax (GST) collections for July, clocking Rs 5,895 crore compared to Rs 5,257 crore in the same month last year, according to provisional figures released by the Centre.
This marks a steady improvement in consumption and business activity in the state, putting it ahead of some of its eastern peers in terms of monthly growth.
However, cumulative GST revenues for the fiscal year so far present a mixed trend.
West Bengal’s post-settlement SGST — the state’s share after IGST apportionment — for the April

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Gross and Net GST revenue collections for the month of July, 2025
GST
Dated:- 1-8-2025

 
The gross and net GST revenue collections for the month of July, 2025.
 
News – Press release – PIB

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Gross GST mop-up rises 7.5 pc to Rs 1.96 lakh cr; refunds jump 67 pc in Jul
GST
Dated:- 1-8-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Aug 1 (PTI) Gross GST collection increased 7.5 per cent to about Rs 1.96 lakh crore in July on higher domestic revenues.
Gross Goods and Services Tax (GST) mop-up was Rs 1.82 lakh crore in July 2024. Last month, the collection was Rs 1.84 lakh crore.
The gross domestic revenue grew 6.7 per cent to Rs 1.43 lakh crore, while tax from imports rose 9.5 per cent to Rs 52,712 c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional Bank Account Attachment Lifted After Appeal and Pre-Deposit Under Section 107(7) CGST Act, 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the provisional attachment of the bank account was unsustainable following the filing of an appeal accompanied by the requisite pre-deposit under Section 107(7) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court affirmed that the filing of the appeal with the pre-deposit automatically operates as a stay on the impugned order, thereby rendering the attachment ineffective. Consequently, the petition challenging the attachment was disposed of in favor of the appellant.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Orders on revised refund claims barred by limitation under Notification 02/2019-CT set aside for fresh adjudication
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned orders dated 18.02.2021, 28.10.2020, and 27.01.2021 passed by the respective respondents concerning revised refund claims barred by limitation under Notification No. 02/2019-CT. The court held that the applicability of the Apex Court's suo motu judgment, Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST, and Notification No. 13/2020 CT requires reconsideration. Consequently, all three matters were remanded to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication in light of the recent legal developments. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with liberty granted to the respondents to raise any grounds in future writ petitions or proceedings. The petition was allowed in part.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Demand Quashed Under Unregistered JDA; No Double Taxation as Developer Paid Full GST Liability
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the impugned adjudication order and related summary order demanding GST payment from the petitioner under an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The Court held that the JDA did not effectuate any transfer or assignment of rights by the petitioner to the developer. Since the developer, a registered person, had already discharged the entire GST liability for 100% of the property, including the petitioner's 30% share, the issue of double taxation did not arise. The respondent was estopped from contradicting the prior acceptance by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the developer was liable to pay GST under the JDA. Consequently, the demand for GST from the petitioner was unjustified, and the petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention and Penalty Under GST Section 129 Quashed Due to No Intent to Evade Tax
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the detention and penalty orders under section 129 of the GST Act due to the absence of intent to evade tax. Although the e-way bill omitted the transporter's name, the truck number and other details were provided, and the goods were transported within Delhi as per the tax invoice and e-way bill. The Court found no evidence of tax evasion or misrepresentation, noting the appellant's unchallenged claim that the goods were transported as a full truckload to its warehouse. Consequently, the penalty proceedings lacked justification. Both the original and appellate orders impugned were set aside, and the petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SCN Issued Within Three-Month Limit Under Section 73 CGST Act; Petitioner Given Fair Hearing and Appeal Rights
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the impugned SCN issued on 30th November 2024 was within the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, preceding the order dated 28th February 2025. The SCN and subsequent order were therefore not time-barred or beyond jurisdiction. The Court found that the Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to file a reply and participate in personal hearings, with only one adjournment sought and granted, and no mandatory minimum of three adjournments required under Section 75(5). Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Petitioner was granted the right to file an appeal against the impugned order by 31st August 2025, subject to the pre-deposit under Section 107 of the CGST Act, with the appeal to be adjudicated on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Stay on duplicate GST demand upheld under Section 73, preventing multiple proceedings and harassment
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of multiple SCNs on the same subject matter and period by different authorities results in multiplicity of proceedings, causing harassment and conflicting decisions. The SCN dated 03.08.2024 issued by DGGI, pending before the High Court of Karnataka with a subsisting stay, precluded respondent no. 1 from adjudicating the matter, as it would duplicate proceedings. The HC directed that the matter be adjudicated solely by DGGI, whose notice covered the entire territory including the Goa branch. Relying on the principle that a stay order on a writ petition challenging a Parliamentary Act has nationwide effect, the HC set aside respondent no. 1's adjudication order dated 30.01.2025 confirming GST demand. The petition was allowed, restraining further action by respondent no. 1 and directing adherence to the stay granted by the Karnataka HC.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail Granted Under Section 483 B.N.S. for Accused in Input Tax Credit Irregularity Case with Conditions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted bail to the petitioner accused of irregularly availing input tax credit through issuance of goods-less invoices without actual supply. Considering the case's triability exclusively by a judicial magistrate, compounding potential up to Rs. 5 crore with Rs. 1,37,27,000 already deposited, absence of criminal antecedents, and the petitioner's judicial custody since 2.5.2025, bail was allowed without commenting on the case merits. The petitioner was ordered released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to appearance at trial and surrendering his passport, with travel abroad requiring prior court permission. The bail application under Section 483 B.N.S. was accordingly allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Notification excludes March 2020 to Feb 2022 from limitation under Sections 54 and 55 of CGST Act for refund claims
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the Notification dated 05 July 2022 excludes the period from 01 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 from the limitation period for filing refund applications under Sections 54 and 55 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the 1st and 2nd Respondents erred in rejecting the refund claim on the ground of limitation. The impugned orders dated 22 June 2022 and 27 October 2021 were set aside. The 2nd Respondent was directed to reconsider the refund application on merits, disregarding the limitation bar, and to pass a reasoned order after hearing the Petitioner within 60 days from the order's upload. The petition was allowed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appellate Authority to Restore Appeal on Filing Self-Certified Copy Under Relevant Rules Within 15 Days
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dismissing the appeal due to non-submission of a self-certified copy of the order appealed against. The petitioner was granted liberty to file the self-certified copy before the Appellate Authority within fifteen days. Upon timely filing, the appeal shall be restored and adjudicated on merits expeditiously, preferably within two months. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Liability Confirmed Despite Limitation Plea Under GST Act Section 74(10); Appeal Allowed Under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the impugned order confirming tax liability on the deceased individual, rejecting the limitation plea under Section 74(10) of the GST Act by applying Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The limitation period commenced from 06.02.2020, making the order dated 05.02.2025 timely. Procedural compliance was affirmed as notices were properly served and opportunities to respond were granted. No interference was warranted with the order. However, acknowledging the petitioner's potential liability under Section 93, the court granted leave to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 within 30 days of receipt of the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Constitutional Validity Upheld for Blocking ITC Under Rule 86A Without Prior Hearing to Prevent Fraud
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, and the related CBIC Circular, which permit blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without prior hearing when there is reason to believe the credit was fraudulently availed or is ineligible. The Court recognized that immediate blocking is necessary to prevent irrecoverable loss, and the absence of pre-decisional hearing does not render the provision unconstitutional due to the availability of post-decisional hearing under Rule 86A(2). The petitioner's objection under this sub-rule must be decided expeditiously by the Commissioner, who may lift the blocking if satisfied. The Court directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned order on the lifting of ITC blocking within 15 days, thus disposing of the writ petition.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST and penalty upheld for goods detained due to missing Part B of E-way bill under Rule 138 MPGST
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the levy of IGST and penalty for detention of goods due to non-generation of Part B of the E-way bill, despite the consignment being accompanied by a tax invoice with a Letter of Undertaking number, consignment note, and letter of credit. The court affirmed that under Rule 138 of the MPGST Rules, both Part A and Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 must be generated electronically before the movement of goods exceeding Rs. 50,000 in value. The absence of Part B invalidated the E-way bill, rendering the transportation unauthorized. The court held that generation of Part B is a mandatory statutory requirement to validate the movement, especially for export consignments. Consequently, the impugned order imposing tax and penalty was found proper, and the petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 107(4) timeline is directory, Limitation Act applies, natural justice violated under Sections 73 and 75
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and the Proper Officer, holding that the timeline under Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act is directory, not mandatory, and the Limitation Act applies. The appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the notice under Section 73(1) was improperly communicated via the Additional Tab instead of the Normal Tab, frustrating proper service and the opportunity for hearing mandated under Sections 73(9) and 75(4). The restrictive scope of intra-court appeal was not invoked due to the fundamental procedural lapses. The judgment of the Single Judge was held to contain a patent error of law in interpreting timelines strictly while ignoring mandatory hearing provisions, warranting interference. The writ petition was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Restored Under CGST Act 2017 on Condition of Rs. 21,500 Payment Within Two Weeks
Case-Laws
GST
The HC directed the restoration of the Petitioner's GST registration under the CGST Act, 2017, conditional upon payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 21,500/- within two weeks from the order's upload date. Immediate restoration of registration was ordered to enable the Petitioner to discharge the dues. The Petitioner undertook to remit the demanded amount within 48 hours of restoration. The court disposed of the petition accordingly, emphasizing compliance with the payment timeline as a prerequisite for continued registration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective GST Cancellation Set Aside for Lack of Documents; Fresh Inspection Ordered Under GST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the retrospective cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration due to non-production of requisite documents, including the Aadhaar Card. Noting the petitioner's submission of a new rent agreement and availability of all necessary documents, the court directed a fresh inspection by the relevant authorities at the petitioner's new premises. The authorities were ordered to decide on the restoration of the GST registration within one month of the inspection. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation set aside; petitioner allowed to file pending returns and pay dues within 4 weeks for revival under Section 29
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation order of the petitioner's GST registration dated 31st July 2024, allowing the petitioner a final opportunity to file the pending returns for the entire default period. The petitioner must pay the outstanding tax, interest, fines, and penalties within four weeks from the date of the order. Upon compliance, the petitioner's GST registration shall be revived. The Court emphasized that the revival would not prejudice the revenue interests of the respondent authorities. The writ petition was disposed of subject to these conditions, thereby providing relief to the petitioner while ensuring statutory compliance and safeguarding revenue.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Adjudication Quashed for Ignoring Annual Returns and Improper ITC Reconciliation Under GST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the adjudication and summary orders for failure to consider the petitioner's annual returns for 2018-19 and 2019-20, relying solely on GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that the respondents were obligated to evaluate the annual returns, reconcile ITC claims across years, and account for ITC reversals via DRC-03. The impugned order, premised on an alleged excess ITC claim without such comprehensive analysis, was unsustainable. The matter involved factual determinations requiring reappraisal and was accordingly remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration at the stage of replying to the show cause notice. The 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

= = = = = = = =

Court orders fresh review of petitioner's documents despite late submission and format issues under procedural rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the petitioner's documents, though submitted belatedly to the first respondent, were not considered due to non-compliance with the prescribed format and timing. The second respondent also declined to admit these documents on appeal, citing procedural defaults and dismissal of the appeal. The court found that the first respondent erred in dismissing the documents solely based on format non-conformity, as substantive reconciliation details had been furnished. The second respondent should have considered these documents at the appellate stage instead of rejecting the appeal. The petitioner was thus deprived of a valuable right. Consequently, the HC allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration of the documents filed, directing disposal in accordance with law expeditiously.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner entitled to opportunity to submit evidence for ITC claim under Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) CGST/SGST
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order to the extent it denied the petitioner's claim of input tax credit (ITC) under Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts, on the ground that the petitioner could not trace the suppliers involved in the relevant transactions. Relying on precedent where a similar petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit requisite documents, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to a similar chance to substantiate the ITC claim. The matter is remitted for reconsideration limited to allowing the petitioner to produce supporting evidence in accordance with applicable circulars. The application is disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Special Leave Petition dismissed; statutory appeal must be filed within 30 days with pre-deposit as per rule
Case-Laws
GST
The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court's directive that the petitioners must pursue their statutory appeal within 30 days, accompanied by the requisite pre-deposit. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy and underscored the principles of natural justice, noting the absence of an opportunity for cross-examination regarding allegations of evasion of GST through bogus invoices from non-existent or non-operational firms. The High Court's decision to entertain the appeal on merits, notwithstanding limitation grounds, was upheld. Consequently, the petitioners' challenge was deemed premature and non-maintainable before the SC, mandating adherence to the appellate process prescribed by law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SC upholds refund formula under Rule 89(5) CGST/SGST Rules for unutilized input tax credit (5)
Case-Laws
GST
The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the applicability of the refund formula under Rule 89(5) of the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017 and related notifications. The Court upheld the validity of the formula for refund of unutilized input tax credit, rejecting claims of ambiguity or unworkability. It affirmed the High Court's view that although the formula may produce certain practical inequities, it aligns with legislative intent to grant limited refunds on accumulated ITC. The Court declined to interfere, holding that the GST Council's formula and related circulars are valid and their retrospective or prospective application does not warrant judicial intervention. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, confirming the existing legal framework for refund of unutilized ITC under the prescribed rules.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay of 394 Days in Appeal Under Section 107(4) GST Act Not Condoned Due to Insufficient Cause
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition seeking condonation of a 394-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017. The court held that Section 107(4) permits condonation of delay only up to one month upon satisfaction of sufficient cause, and any delay beyond that without cogent reasons cannot be condoned. The reasons provided for the extensive delay were deemed inadequate. Additionally, the challenge to the Adjudicating Authority's order on grounds of violation of natural justice due to improper hearing notice was rejected. Consequently, the statutory limitation period was upheld, and the appeal was not entertained beyond the prescribed time frame.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =