Goods and Services Tax

AI, IndiGo, SpiceJet seek ATF price relief; say airline industry on verge of 'stopping operations'
GST
Dated:- 28-4-2026
PTI
Mumbai, Apr 28 (PTI) Air India, IndiGo and SpiceJet have told the government that the country's airline industry is under extreme stress and on the verge of “stopping operations”, as they sought revision in ATF pricing and financial support.

The West Asia turmoil has pushed up oil prices, and airspace restrictions have increased airlines' operating costs, especially on long-haul routes. Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) accounts for around 40 per cent of a carrier's operational expenses.

Against this backdrop, the Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA) has written to the civil aviation ministry, seeking steps

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

or immediate and meaningful financial support to tide over the current situation,” it said in a letter on April 26.

Also, the airlines have sought temporary deferment of excise duty on ATF, which is at 11 per cent.

“With the abnormal increase in ATF prices from the pre-crisis period, adding rupee depreciation to the increased prices, the 11 per cent excise duty also increases manifold for the airlines and adds to the ATF price as a big impact on airlines,” they said.

Last month, the government limited the hike in ATF price to Rs 15 per litre for domestic operations, but for international operations, the price rose by Rs 73 per litre.

The airlines said the situation has practically made international operations, along with domest

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Approved resolution plan barred continued recovery action and compelled unblocking of input tax credit.
Case-Laws
GST
An approved corporate insolvency resolution plan was treated as ative, and because the State had not lodged its claim in the insolvency proceedings and its challenges to the approval order had failed, it could not continue the impugned recovery action or keep the petitioner's input tax credit blocked. The Court quashed the notice and directed unblocking of the ITC and release of the amount admissible in law. This relief was granted without prejudice to any other recovery action that may remain available to the State under law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Consideration of audit report in input tax credit dispute led to remand for fresh adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
Wrongful availment and distribution of input tax credit was interfered with because the competent authority had not considered the petitioner's audit report and other material on record. The petitioner claimed the Section 65(6) audit report gave a clean chit for the disputed input tax credit distributed by the ISD for 2018-19 and 2019-20, and the respondents placed no rebuttal to that plea. The High Court held that the impact of the audit report required adjudication, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh decision after considering both sides' submissions. All merits, including the show cause notice and objections, were left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Documentary evidence and cooperation justified anticipatory bail in a GST input tax credit investigation despite economic offence allegations.
Case-Laws
GST
Anticipatory bail was granted in a GST investigation for alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit because the allegations rested mainly on documentary material, the relevant records had already been furnished, and no compelling basis for custodial interrogation was shown. The Court also relied on the petitioner's cooperation with the inquiry, absence of placed criminal antecedents, and deposit of the amount alleged to have been evaded. On that basis, arrest was found unwarranted, and pre-arrest protection was allowed subject to conditions requiring surrender, execution of bond, regular appearance, travel restriction, and full cooperation with the investigation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ jurisdiction for lack of officer competence under GST upheld; adjudication quashed for absence of proper authorisation.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ jurisdiction remained available because the challenge went to the very competence of the officer who passed the GST adjudication order, and an alternative remedy does not bar interference where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction. Reading Section 2(91) of the CGST Act with Section 6 of the Union Territory GST Act, the HC held that a State tax officer can act as a proper officer only subject to notification issued on the Council's recommendation. As no such recommendation existed authorising the officer concerned, the adjudication was invalid and was quashed, with liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective input tax credit relief under Section 16(5) overrides Section 16(4), requiring fresh reconsideration of the claim.
Case-Laws
GST
A HC held that the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5), with a non obstante clause overriding Section 16(4), permitted a registered person to avail input tax credit for the specified financial years if the Section 39 return was filed up to 30.11.2021. Because the return here had been filed on 28.11.2020 for the January to March 2020 period, the claim fell within that extended statutory window and could not be rejected as time-barred under Section 16(4). The impugned order and summary order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication under Section 16(5), leaving other contentions open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST detention penalty requires a speaking order on the show cause notice; payment alone does not end adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
Payment of the demanded tax, penalty and fine in GST detention and confiscation proceedings did not dispense with the proper officer's duty to adjudicate the show cause notice by a formal, reasoned order. The Court held that consideration of the taxpayer's reply and issuance of a speaking order are part of natural justice and necessary to preserve the statutory appellate remedy. Because the release order did not amount to final adjudication and no reasoned order had been passed, the penalty order could not stand and was set aside. Liberty was granted to pass a fresh speaking order after personal hearing and complete the statutory summary.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional attachment under GST may be relaxed when substitute security protects revenue and business operations can resume.
Case-Laws
GST
Provisional attachment of bank accounts under GST can be relaxed where substitute security adequately protects revenue. The High Court accepted the petitioner's fixed deposit as sufficient security, permitted operation of the attached accounts, and quashed the attachment only to that extent. The investigation, scrutiny of invoices and other material, and any future show cause notice were left unaffected. The deposit was directed to remain available for adjustment against any liability finally determined, and to be returned with accrued interest if the final adjudication favoured the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit blocking based only on cancelled registration fails after restoration, with credit allowed to be used in law.
Case-Laws
GST
Blocking of input tax credit could not be sustained where the impugned action rested solely on cancellation of GST registration and that registration was later restored. Once the cancellation ceased to exist, the foundation for blocking the credit disappeared, and the communication was liable to be withdrawn. The HC therefore quashed the blocking communication and held the petitioner entitled to utilise the input tax credit in accordance with law. Other contentions were not examined on merits and were left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional attachment under the CGST Act ends once a final order under Section 74 is passed.
Case-Laws
GST
A provisional attachment of a bank account under the CGST Act does not continue after a final order is passed under Section 74. Applying the Supreme Court ruling in Om Prakash Gupta, the High Court held that the earlier attachment ceased on the passing of the final adjudication order and no separate adjudication on the attachment was required. 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

= = = = = = = =

Multiple tax periods cannot be clubbed in one GST show cause notice; year-wise limitation and liability apply separately.
Case-Laws
GST
A show cause notice under the CGST Act cannot club multiple financial years into one proceeding, because liability, annual return compliance and limitation operate separately for each tax period. A single notice combining distinct years would impermissibly aggregate different due dates and limitation consequences; the impugned notice was therefore quashed. The Court also held that, within the State, its own later decisions on this point were binding, and the contrary Delhi High Court view could not prevail. The Supreme Court's in limine dismissal of the challenge to that view did not attract merger and did not displace the binding effect of the Court's decisions. Liberty was reserved to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory interest on delayed refund accrues automatically after expiry of the six-month period; principal cannot be paid alone.
Case-Laws
GST
Interest on a delayed refund accrued automatically once the statutory six-month period expired without payment, and the department could not release only the principal while withholding the interest component. The High Court held that the statutory mandate required interest to be computed from the day after expiry of the six-month period until disposal, and directed payment of the interest within two weeks. It further directed that any further default would attract interest at 18% per annum from 16.02.2026 until actual payment, recoverable from the officer responsible rather than the State exchequer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory GST pre-deposit governs appeal filing; merits can be examined only after a valid appeal with delay condonation.
Case-Laws
GST
Under GST, a statutory pre-deposit is mandatory for maintaining an appeal, and alleged payment of tax during adjudication cannot be used to bypass that requirement. Contentions going to the merits of penalty or liability must be examined only after a valid appeal is filed before the appellate authority. Where the appeal period has lapsed, the appellant may be given liberty to file the appeal with the prescribed deposit and seek condonation of delay, leaving both delay and merits for appellate consideration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transitional input tax credit must be decided within Section 140's confined scope; vague appellate findings led to remand.
Case-Laws
GST
Transitional input tax credit under Section 140 must be examined within its own confined jurisdiction, and issues falling within MVAT proceedings cannot be imported without a proper Section 140 analysis. The appellate authority's findings were vague, non-speaking and did not show a legally structured consideration of the limited credit issue. The High Court therefore set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter for fresh, independent adjudication on transitional input tax credit after hearing both sides, with all contentions left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST reimbursement under works contract upheld; contractor entitled to tax refund with interest on proven payment.
Case-Laws
GST
A post-01.07.2017 works contract was held to fall under the GST regime, so the contractor could not insist on the pre-GST tax rate. Clause 42.1 was construed to entitle reimbursement of Central and State taxes actually levied and paid on completed items of work, and CGST/SGST were held covered within that expression. The absence of an incorporated Schedule A could not defeat the contractual reimbursement right. GST returns and portal statements were accepted as proof of payment. The refusal to reimburse was found arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and interest at 12% per annum was awarded from the respective dates of payment. The writ petition was held maintainable because the dispute turned on contract interpretation, not disputed facts.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective application of amended refund formula secures inverted duty structure refund under the CGST regime
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax amending Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules had to be applied even to refund applications filed before 5 July 2022, following the final view in Ascent Meditech Ltd. The appellate authority's failure to consider that notification and the related clarification rendered its rejection of the refund claims unsustainable. On a composite reading of Section 54(3) and the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to refund of accumulated input tax credit arising from the inverted duty structure, and the original and appellate rejection orders were quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Clear disclosure in GST DRC-01 required for proposed penalty; ambiguity vitiates adjudication and notice must be rectified.
Case-Laws
GST
FORM GST DRC-01 must itself disclose the proposed tax, interest and penalty, because Rule 142 requires service of the statutory summary notice in the prescribed form and the noticee's right under Section 74(8) depends on clear particulars to make payment within time. A penalty demand cannot be sustained solely on recitals in an annexed detailed notice where no separate statutory form is prescribed. Ambiguity in DRC-01 as to the proposed penalty was a procedural defect and a breach of natural justice, which vitiated confirmation of penalty in the adjudication order. The order was set aside, and the authority was permitted to issue a rectified notice and proceed afresh after giving opportunity to the taxpayer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Second refund application maintainable under GST when an omitted claim is filed within limitation and no statutory bar exists.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 54(1) of the CGST Act does not bar a second refund application where a specific invoice or period was omitted inadvertently, provided the subsequent claim is within the two-year limitation period. The High Court held that a refund claim cannot be rejected on a purely technical ground merely because an earlier application covered a larger overlapping period. It further ruled that no analogous res judicata bar can be imported into refund proceedings in the absence of express statutory prohibition. The rejection was set aside, and the refund application was restored for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the taxpayer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sufficient cause for delayed statutory appeal must be examined within the condonable period before rejecting limitation
Case-Laws
GST
Section 107(4) gives the Appellate Authority discretion to admit an appeal within the additional one-month condonable period if sufficient cause prevented timely filing. Where an appeal is presented within that period, the authority must examine the explanation for delay on its merits, including uncertainty created by overlapping statutory changes and portal-related constraints. Rejection as time-barred without properly considering that explanation is unsustainable. The appeal was therefore restored for fresh consideration on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Binding effect of advance ruling on GST rate for works contract services upheld; contradictory rejection order quashed.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the dispute was substantially legal because there was no factual dispute about execution of the works. It gave binding effect under Section 103 to the appellate advance ruling that the recipient was not a local authority and that GST on the works contract services was payable at 18%. The later administrative order was found contradictory, arbitrary, and based on fallacious reasoning, and the objection that documents were not supplied was rejected because the material was already available with the authority. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to release the balance 6% GST within four weeks.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory personal hearing under natural justice required before adverse GST order; non-compliance led to quashing and remand.
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the statutory mandate of personal hearing under Section 75(4) could not be displaced by the petitioner's earlier indication in Form GST DRC-06 declining such hearing. Once an adverse order was proposed, the authority was required to grant a further opportunity of hearing before final adjudication. As no hearing was afforded, the order was vitiated by breach of natural justice and was set aside without examining the merits of the demand. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after giving the required opportunity of hearing within the time fixed by the Court.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

University affiliation fees are not taxable supply and are exempt as core educational services under GST
Case-Laws
GST
Affiliation granted by a university to constituent colleges was held to be a statutory educational and regulatory function, not a supply of service in the course or furtherance of business. The affiliation fee lacked bargain and quid pro quo and therefore was not consideration for a taxable supply under the CGST Act. The Court further held that, in any event, affiliation services fall within Entry 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as services relating to admission, examinations and core educational functions. The GST levy and demand were therefore quashed, and refund was directed subject to verification that the tax burden had not been passed on to students.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Limitation exclusion for GST appeal saved condonable delay; High Court set aside time-bar rejection and ordered remand.
Case-Laws
GST
A High Court held that, after excluding the Supreme Court-directed period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, limitation for the GST cancellation appeal commenced on 01.03.2022, not on the date of the cancellation order. The appeal filed on 06.06.2022 was beyond 90 days but within the additional condonable period under Section 107(4), so the appellate authority wrongly treated it as time-barred and as having no discretion to consider condonation. The rejection was quashed and the matter remanded for consideration of delay condonation and, if allowed, disposal of the appeal on merits, without any view on sufficiency of cause.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Trader fined Rs 6.29 lakh for GST violations in J-K’s Udhampur
GST
Dated:- 25-4-2026
PTI
Jammu, Apr 25 (PTI) The enforcement team on Saturday imposed a penalty of Rs 6.29 lakh on a trader for violation of GST norms in Udhampur district of Jammu and Kashmir, a spokesman of the Sales Tax Department said.

The action was initiated after the trader was found attempting to manage the movement of goods without proper documentation, in clear contravention of GST regulations, he said.

He said the trader was under surveillance for approximately 12 days based on specific intelligence inputs from reliable sources. “The interception was successfully carried out with the assistance of RFID tracking, enabling effective monitoring of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ jurisdiction yields to statutory appeal where jurisdictional error and natural justice breach are not clearly established.
Case-Laws
GST
Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal barred writ interference against an order under the CGST Act where the challenge depended on reassessment of the show-cause notice, record and findings on wrongful ITC availment, fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression. The Court held that such factual and merits-based objections did not show that the proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction, and any alleged error in the officer's conclusions had to be tested in appeal. It also found no patent breach of natural justice, since notice and opportunity to respond were afforded and the order dealt with the objections raised. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to file a statutory appeal within four weeks.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =