Goods and Services Tax

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings require the same subject matter; distinct periods and allegations kept the later action valid.
Case-Laws
GST
Parallel GST proceedings are barred only when both actions concern the same subject matter, meaning the same tax liability, facts, contravention and period. Here, the later Section 74 proceedings related to Financial Year 2018-2019 and alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit on goods-less invoices, while the earlier Section 73 action concerned Financial Year 2019-2020 and different return discrepancies; the bar under Section 6(2)(b) therefore did not apply and the proceedings were maintainable. The Court also found that the impugned order had considered the taxpayer's reply, so there was no breach of natural justice. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Effective personal hearing is mandatory on request; lack of prior notice vitiated the adjudication order for breach of natural justice.
Case-Laws
GST
Failure to grant an effective personal hearing after a specific request vitiated the adjudication order for breach of natural justice. The HC held that under Section 75(4), once a hearing is sought, it becomes mandatory, and the date of hearing must be separately intimated in advance. A mere statement in the order that the petitioner was heard on the same day its reply was filed was insufficient, especially where the show-cause notice only called for a reply and did not inform that oral hearing would also occur then. The adjudication was therefore set aside, with liberty to the authority to give due notice, hear the petitioner afresh, and pass a fresh order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Service tax demand on Form 26AS data alone fails where taxability and extended limitation are not lawfully established.
Case-Laws
GST
Service tax demand cannot rest on Form 26AS alone; taxability must be determined under the governing statute, and receipts reflected in income tax data do not by themselves establish liability. The Court held the demand unsustainable because the authority failed to examine the nature of services and did not make a lawful finding that the services were taxable. It also held that the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires a conclusive finding of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, which was absent; the extended period was therefore invalid and the proceedings unauthorized. The writ petition remained maintainable despite an alternative remedy because the challenge disclosed a jurisdictional error apparent on the record.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proof of actual GST payment required before reimbursement claim can be examined under a government contract.
Case-Laws
GST
Entitlement to reimbursement of differential GST under a government contract was not decided on merits. The Court accepted the respondents' position that a mere assertion of tax payment was insufficient and that supporting documents evidencing actual payment or deposit of GST were required. It directed the petitioner to furnish proof of GST payment and ordered the respondents to examine the reimbursement claim and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law within the stipulated time. No final adjudication was made on the substantive right to reimbursement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Unconstitutional tax levy refund attracts compensatory interest from deposit date until refund, with statutory refund limits inapplicable.
Case-Laws
GST
Where tax is collected under a levy later struck down as unconstitutional, the claim for return of the amount is not governed by the ordinary refund limitations in Sections 54 and 56. The Court treated the money as wrongfully retained by the State and rejected the revenue's objection based on the statutory refund scheme. It further held that interest is compensatory and payable for the period during which the taxpayer was deprived of the use of the money. Interest was therefore directed at 6% per annum from the date of deposit until the date of refund, and the order denying interest was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice breached when benchmark yield was fixed on undisclosed material; assessment orders were set aside and remanded.
Case-Laws
GST
Non-disclosure of the material used to fix a benchmark yield at 94.5% violated natural justice because the assessee had repeatedly sought the source and basis of that figure, including in representations and at personal hearing, but was not furnished any reply or supporting record. The High Court held that an assessment founded on undisclosed material denies an effective opportunity to object and amounts to denial of a proper hearing. The impugned assessment orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for disclosure of the relied-upon material, receipt of objections, and fresh orders after adequate opportunity.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transitional input tax credit under Section 140 cannot be denied by reading Section 140(5) to override pre-appointed-day credit carry forward.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 140 permits carry forward of eligible CENVAT credit into the GST regime where the credit is reflected in the return for the period ending immediately before the appointed day, and Section 140(5) does not negate that entitlement; it only extends credit availability for specified post-appointed-day receipt situations. The authority's view that pre-appointed-day credit could not transition was based on a reading of the provision and was unsustainable. The High Court set aside the order reversing the transitioned credit and directed consequential proceedings to be completed expeditiously.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ maintainability and statutory pre-deposit: High Court sent the dispute to the functional appellate tribunal.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition may be entertained when the statutory appellate forum is not constituted or functional, but only to avoid leaving the aggrieved party remediless. Once the appellate forum became functional and the appeal period was extended through the notified mechanism, the writ court declined to keep the matter pending and left the dispute to the Tribunal. The earlier non-functioning of the forum did not waive the statutory pre-deposit condition for a second appeal. The petitioner was directed to file the statutory appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed timeline after complying with the required deposit, without any examination of the merits of the first appellate order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Biodegradable bag classification turns on material and actual biodegradability; concessional GST applies only if the bags are truly biodegradable.
Case-Laws
GST
Biodegradable bag classification depends on constituent material: bags made of polymer or compostable plastics fall under Chapter 39, while bags made of paper fall under Chapter 48. The Authority declined to determine actual biodegradability or compostability, treating that as a scientific question outside its jurisdiction under Section 97(2). Entry No. 319 of Schedule I grants a 5% concessional rate for paper sacks/bags and biodegradable bags only if the goods are in fact biodegradable; if that condition is not met, the concessional entry does not apply and the general rate under the applicable Chapter 39 classification governs.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Online coaching classified as training services, not OIDAR, making Rajasthan supplies intra-State for tax purposes.
Case-Laws
GST
Online training delivered through live and recorded digital platforms was classified as commercial training and coaching services under SAC 999293, because the supply was interactive, human-dependent, included live doubt-solving, structured guidance and printed study material, and was not mere online information access or retrieval. For place of supply, training services supplied to unregistered persons are governed by the location where the services are actually performed; since the coaching, technical infrastructure, faculty, content development, administration and dispatch of study material were all based in Rajasthan, the services were actually performed there. The supplies were therefore intra-State and taxable to CGST and Rajasthan SGST, not IGST, even where students were outside Rajasthan.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTAT Delhi State Bench begins operations, with appeals now to be filed under the prescribed tribunal procedure rules.
Circulars
GST – States
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi State Bench has commenced operations at its temporary address in New Delhi and will exercise jurisdiction over all districts in the NCT of Delhi as notified. Appeals under the CGST Act, 2017 and the relevant State GST Act arising from that jurisdiction must now be instituted before this Bench and filed in accordance with the GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025, especially Chapter III governing institution of appeals. The notice also directs stakeholders to the GSTAT portal for e-filing guidance, procedure rules and presidential orders, and provides support channels for filing difficulties.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anticipatory bail denied in GST fake invoice fraud, as prima facie evidence showed organised economic offence and central roles.
Case-Laws
GST
Anticipatory bail was refused in a CGST fake-invoice and fraudulent input tax credit investigation, as the HC found prima facie material showing an organised economic offence and the applicants' central role in it. The Court relied on bank records, GST portal material and electronic communications, not merely witness statements, to conclude that one applicant led GST operations and finances while the other facilitated circulation of invoices. Emphasising that economic offences require stricter scrutiny and that non-compoundable GST offences reflect legislative seriousness, the Court held that ongoing investigation and possible custodial interrogation justified denial of pre-arrest protection.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory refund entitlement with interest cannot be delayed by administrative excuses, the HC held under the JVAT Act.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that excess tax had to be refunded under the JVAT Act, 2005, and that a dealer entitled to refund was also entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum after ninety days from the refund application until actual payment. Once the earlier challenge had ended, including dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the Department was bound to process and release the refund. Administrative excuses such as vacancy or deputation of officers were held legally untenable and could not justify continued delay or defeat the statutory refund entitlement. The Commissioner was directed to ensure release of the refund with interest 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

= = = = = = = =

Writ jurisdiction may restore a delayed GST appeal where limitation bars condonation and business livelihood is affected.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ jurisdiction can be used to restore a GST appellate remedy where the statutory condonation limit prevents consideration of a delayed appeal, if the delay is shown to arise from circumstances beyond the appellant's control. The Court treated cancellation of GST registration as affecting the ability to carry on business and livelihood, and found that refusal to hear the appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice. It therefore condoned the 720-day delay, set aside the order rejecting the appeal as time-barred, and directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =