Goods and Services Tax

Consequential GST refund rejection requires statutory appeal where fresh lawful grounds remain open after appellate remand.
Case-Laws
GST
A consequential GST refund rejection following an appellate order may be challenged through the statutory appeal where the appellate order merely set aside the earlier rejection on previously considered grounds. The Proper Officer may examine refund entitlement afresh on other legally permissible grounds, provided the fresh reasons are distinct from those rejected in appeal. Questions concerning the appellate order's effect and the validity of the new rejection grounds require merits review in the statutory appellate process. Writ intervention is unavailable where the order is not prima facie non est or wholly without jurisdiction. The taxpayer may seek exclusion of the time spent in writ proceedings for limitation purposes.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST adjudication order issuance within limitation remains valid despite later portal upload, which concerns service and enforceability.
Case-Laws
GST
For GST adjudication orders under Section 73, issuance within the limitation period is distinct from service. The provision requires the proper officer to complete and digitally authenticate the adjudicatory order within time, while Section 169 governs communication through prescribed service modes. Uploading a summary in Form GST DRC-07 under Rule 142(5) does not make the upload date the date of issuance or impose a requirement that service be completed within the issuance limitation period. Accordingly, an order digitally signed within the extended period remains valid even if uploaded on the common portal the following day; the later upload affects service and enforceability, not validity.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative statutory appeal remedy bars writ challenge to ineligible input tax credit demand based on alleged fake invoices.
Case-Laws
GST
Ineligible input tax credit allegedly claimed through fake invoices from non-existing firms was addressed in relation to the statutory appellate remedy. The notes state that the findings on the entities' functioning, ITC availment, and the described modus operandi were identical to those in another Order-in-Original. As the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy, the writ petition was not entertained; the appropriate course was an appeal to the Additional or Joint Commissioner of Appeals under section 107 of the CGST Act against the Order-in-Original.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Binding effect of advance rulings excludes supply recipients, leaving contractual GST reimbursement insufficient to establish writ standing.
Case-Laws
GST
Advance rulings bind only the applicant and the concerned or jurisdictional tax officer; third parties cannot claim their benefit or challenge them. A recipient contractually required to reimburse applicable GST lacked locus standi to challenge a supplier's advance ruling because the contract did not fix the supply classification or GST rate. “Applicable GST” meant tax determined under law, and the ruling did not alter any contractual tax treatment. As the recipient was neither the applicant nor a concerned authority, it was not an aggrieved person and its writ petition was not maintainable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Duplicative GST adjudication for the same issues and assessment period invalidates subsequent State GST assessment and rectification orders.
Case-Laws
GST
Duplicative GST proceedings on the same issues and assessment period cannot be sustained where central GST authorities have already issued an adjudication order that remains pending in appeal. The High Court found that the subsequent State GST assessment and rectification orders addressed matters already decided in the earlier central GST order. It therefore quashed the State GST orders and allowed the writ petition, preventing parallel adjudication of identical GST issues for the same period.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory GST liability overrides works-contract reimbursement disputes, limiting contractual claims and barring non-statutory return or waiver relief.
Case-Laws
GST
GST liability on works executed under pre-GST contracts remains governed exclusively by the applicable GST enactments and cannot be altered by contractual terms or an employer's failure to reimburse differential tax. A contractor's claim for incremental GST reimbursement is confined to the contractual relationship with the concerned employer and does not bind tax authorities. Revised returns, waiver of interest or penalties, and relaxation of statutory limitation cannot be granted through directions arising from a contractual reimbursement dispute, as these matters remain subject to the GST statutory framework. Directions affecting tax authorities or the State beyond that framework were treated as unsustainable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill compliance applies to machinery returned for testing under delivery challans, despite no taxable supply arising.
Case-Laws
GST
Re-transportation of purchased machinery to the seller for testing without consideration is not a supply under section 7(1)(a) of the CGST/KGST Act and does not attract tax on the movement. Rule 55 permits such movement otherwise than by way of supply under delivery challans, but Rule 138 still requires an e-way bill unless an exemption applies. Transport without the required e-way bill attracts penalty under the second part of section 129(1)(a). The High Court upheld the reduced penalty and consequential refund ordered by the Single Judge, while dismissing the writ appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Excess input tax credit beyond reflected supplier data attracts extended-period assessment, interest and penalty; turnover mismatch requires documentary support.
Case-Laws
GST
Excess input tax credit claimed in GSTR-3B beyond the credit reflected in GSTR-2A and GSTR-2B was treated as warranting restriction of credit, statutory interest, penalty and invocation of the extended period under Section 74. The notes state that payment of the admitted tax liability without interest and penalty did not preclude these consequences. For the turnover discrepancy between GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C, an explanation based on VAT and Karnataka GST sales required supporting particulars and returns. That limited mismatch issue was remitted for fresh determination upon submission of a proper reply and supporting documents, while the assessment concerning excess credit was sustained.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Arrest authorisation under GST law is required before anticipatory bail can be considered, with limited interim protection available.
Case-Laws
GST
Arrest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act requires an order authorising arrest under section 69. Where no such order has been passed, an anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained at that stage. The application was disposed of, while granting limited protection from arrest for one week after the applicant is informed that an order under section 69 has been issued.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Condonation beyond the statutory appeal-delay cap under GST awaits consideration after analogous appeals are placed before the Tribunal.
Case-Laws
GST
Tribunal jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory cap under section 107(4) of the CGST Act is identified as the central issue. The Special Bench directed the Registry to obtain and place details of appeals involving the identical question and listed the matter for hearing. The text records no determination on whether delay beyond the statutory limit may be condoned.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fraudulent GST registration and denial of hearing lead to quashing of ex parte adjudication and fresh proceedings
Case-Laws
GST
Fraudulent use of an individual's identity to obtain GST registration can undermine adjudication when the affected person has previously alerted the GST authorities and received no effective response. Where notices issued in the firm's name do not reach that person, an order-in-original passed without his participation raises a serious opportunity-of-hearing concern. The described decision records that the order was quashed and the proceedings remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner. Any adverse fresh order was directed not to be implemented for three weeks, allowing the petitioner to pursue an appropriate remedy.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Wrong-head GST payment can be appropriated towards CGST and SGST liabilities without requiring fresh payment followed by refund
Case-Laws
GST
Inadvertent payment of GST under the IGST head does not constitute a supply wrongly treated as inter-State or intra-State. Accordingly, Section 19 of the IGST Act, the corresponding CGST provision and Rule 89(1A) do not require a taxpayer to make fresh CGST and SGST payments before seeking a refund where the aggregate liability was already discharged within the prescribed period under IGST. The authorities were directed to appropriate the IGST amount towards the corresponding CGST and SGST liabilities, subject to any procedurally necessary refund application. The inconsistent portion of the rectification order was set aside, and the matter was disposed of on that basis.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceedings
Case-Laws
GST
Separate assessment orders for different assessment years may be issued simultaneously where each year is supported by a separate notice and separate opportunity to respond. The absence of a statutory prohibition means simultaneous issuance does not, by itself, invalidate the orders. The restriction on composite notices and common assessment orders is directed at preventing prejudice from combining proceedings across years, not at prohibiting coordinated issuance of distinct orders. Accordingly, simultaneous separate orders do not warrant interference, while substantive challenges remain subject to the available statutory appellate remedies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Portal service of GST notices is valid; failure to use statutory remedies defeats writ challenge to registration cancellation.
Case-Laws
GST
GST law recognises uploading a show-cause notice on the GST portal as valid service, so absence of physical delivery does not prevent the recipient from responding. Because the notices were available on the portal but no response was filed, a natural justice challenge based solely on non-service was rejected. Following cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns, statutory remedies for revival and appeal were available but not pursued. The writ remedy could not be used after expiry of the appeal period to bypass the statutory scheme, including pre-deposit requirements; merits such as subsequent filing of returns were left for statutory appeal. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective input tax credit relief removes delayed-availment demand, while mismatch claims and consequential penalty require fresh adjudication
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective relaxation of the time limit for claiming input tax credit under section 16(5) can remove the section 16(4) impediment where returns for the relevant period were filed by 30 November 2021; accordingly, the delayed-availment demand for 2018-19 was quashed. Alleged GST short payment and excess credit arising from supplier-return mismatches require factual reconsideration, including verification of claimed voluntary payment and asserted insolvency proceedings involving the service provider. Consequential enhanced penalty depends on the surviving demand and therefore could not be sustained while the remaining issues required fresh adjudication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Appellate Tribunal remedy preserved after constitution, with limitation protection subject to mandatory pre-deposit and defect removal
Case-Laws
GST
Following constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the appellate remedy is available for challenging the impugned orders. The writ petition was disposed of without examining the orders' validity, with permission to file an appeal before the Tribunal by June 30, 2026. The appeal must be entertained without objection based on limitation, but remains subject to the specified mandatory pre-deposit requirements and removal of defects. The operative effect is that access to the Tribunal is preserved within the permitted timeframe, while compliance with pre-deposit and filing-defect directions remains necessary for entertainment of the appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pre-deposit rules after reduced tax demand may avoid duplicate payment, while deficient court fees must be cured before admission.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 112 requires payment of admitted dues and the prescribed percentage of disputed tax in addition to the amount deposited under Section 107. Where the first appellate authority reduces the tax demand and the earlier pre-deposit already covers the prescribed percentage of the reduced demand, no further pre-deposit under Section 112 is required. The prescribed court fee must nevertheless be paid separately: a short payment identified by the Registry must be cured before the appeal proceeds. On payment of the balance statutory court fee and verification of the earlier pre-deposit, the matter may be placed before the Bench for admission.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory appellate remedy and compliance with an unstayed order: goods released subject to bond and local surety
Case-Laws
GST
A challenge by the State to a first appellate order under the GST enactment should ordinarily be pursued before the statutory appellate forum, which can examine questions of fact and law; writ jurisdiction should not be exercised at first instance merely because the Tribunal was not fully functional. The appellate order remained operative because it had neither been stayed nor set aside, so compliance could not be withheld on the basis of a proposed challenge. Release of the goods was therefore directed subject to the petitioner furnishing a bond and local surety, preserving consequential recovery if the State ultimately succeeded in appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Jurisdictional challenges can sustain writ scrutiny of show-cause notices while enforcement remains restrained pending adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition may be entertained against a show-cause notice where the challenge concerns jurisdiction and discloses a prima facie case, despite pending statutory proceedings. The authority is not prevented from considering and deciding the notice; however, the affected parties must participate in the proceedings, while enforcement of any resulting decision may be restrained pending disposal of the writ petition or further orders. The court does not determine the merits of the underlying jurisdictional objection at this stage, including the scope of the relevant notification or the authority to issue the notice under Section 73. The arrangement preserves participation in adjudication while providing interim protection against enforcement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST transition under contract clauses shifts additional tax burden to the employer, while escalation disputes proceed through contractual remedies
Case-Laws
GST
Clause 43.2 requires contract-price adjustment where taxes, duties or levies change during contract execution and the change is not already reflected in the price. Accordingly, GST introduced during subsisting works contracts shifted the additional tax burden to the employer, supported by the contractual terms and the applicable Government Order, and the tax component was directed to be reimbursed. Retention amounts could not be withheld merely because audit objections remained pending; they were to be refunded with commercial-rate interest unless appropriation was otherwise justified. Claims for price escalation or adjustment involving disputed facts were not determined in writ proceedings and were left to the contractual dispute-resolution mechanism and other remedies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Year-wise tax assessments required: composite orders invalid, while writ challenges remain maintainable despite appellate dismissal
Case-Laws
GST
A single show-cause notice or composite assessment order cannot cover multiple tax periods where separate year-wise proceedings are required under Sections 73 and 74. The notes state that an assessment covering 2017-18 and 2018-19 was therefore set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings separately for each financial year, subject to the deposit condition and exclusion of time for limitation. They also record that a writ challenge to the original assessment remains maintainable despite dismissal of an appeal, so the appellate dismissal did not prevent examination of the assessment's legality. The matter was consequently remitted on the limited ground of the composite assessment.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST recovery stay requires pre-deposit and undertaking; refund denied despite plea of ignorance of law
Case-Laws
GST
GST recovery stay pending Tribunal proceedings was available only on compliance with the prescribed pre-deposit and filing an undertaking to appeal within time; where the taxpayer did not follow that procedure and sought refund after recovery had already been made, refund was refused. The taxpayer's plea of ignorance of the circular was rejected on the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse. Granting refund would have operated as an impermissible waiver of the pre-deposit, while the Tribunal was left free to decide the appeal on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fraud assessment notice timelines treated as directory where no prejudice was shown and statutory remedy remained available
Case-Laws
GST
In fraud assessments, the six-month period for issuing a show cause notice before the order-in-original was treated as directory, not mandatory, because the statute prescribed no consequence for breach; the challenge therefore turned on prejudice, and none was shown where multiple notices, replies, and personal hearings were granted and the assessment was passed within limitation. The writ court also declined to bypass the statutory remedy, noting that the Supreme Court had already left the assessee to pursue the appellate forum with all contentions available, including alleged prejudice from missing files; the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to invoke that remedy.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit and retrospective supplier cancellation cannot bar claims without proof of genuine supply.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because a supplier's registration was cancelled retrospectively; the authorities must examine whether the purchaser proved actual receipt of goods through invoices, e-way bills, lorry receipts and similar records. Because that genuineness inquiry was not undertaken and most transactions predated the cancellation order, the assessment orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Section 74 foundational facts upheld, and writ challenge to the show cause notices was rejected.
Case-Laws
GST
Foundational facts supported invocation of the extended period under GST Section 74, because the notices set out detailed allegations of incorrect valuation, inadmissible credit-note adjustment and short payment of tax, backed by investigation material and prior intimation; the writ challenge was therefore rejected as the disputed factual issues were not fit for writ review. Prior audit and earlier investigation did not defeat jurisdiction, because audit under Section 65 is distinct from a pan-India DGGI investigation, and overlap alone did not invalidate notices where separate grounds of evasion were alleged. The proceedings were held maintainable and the taxpayer was directed to reply before the adjudicating authority.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =