Goods and Services Tax

GST departmental appeal limits and Zonal Law Committees updated for review, appeal selection, and uniform appellate practice.
Circulars
GST – States
Monetary limits continue to govern departmental filing of appeals, applications and special leave petitions under the UPGST framework: GSTAT matters below Rs. 20,00,000, High Court matters below Rs. 1,00,00,000 and Supreme Court matters below Rs. 2,00,00,000 are ordinarily not to be pursued. The limits do not apply where a provision, rule, regulation, order, notification, direction or circular is treated as unconstitutional, or where the dispute concerns valuation, classification, refunds, place of supply, recurring interpretative issues, adverse costs or observations, or any matter the Commissioner considers necessary in the interest of justice or revenue. Zonal Law Committees are to review first appellate orders, meet at least twice monthly, record minutes and identify cases for appeal or best-practice circulation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill threshold clarified for intra-State goods movement; job work transfers remain exempt from generation requirement.
Circulars
GST – States
An e-way bill is required for intra-State movement of goods in West Bengal where the consignment value exceeds Rs. 50,000, with effect from 01.06.2026. Movements relating to job work remain exempt, including goods sent to a job-worker, moved between job-workers, or returned to the principal after job work. For non-job-work intra-State movements at or below the threshold, no e-way bill is required. The clarification operationalises the earlier notification under the West Bengal GST Rules.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation requires a speaking order and precise notice of default to satisfy natural justice.
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns was quashed because the show cause notice did not disclose the specific period of default and the cancellation order gave no reasons beyond reproducing the statutory ground. The High Court held that cancellation carries adverse civil consequences, so Rule 22 and Form GST REG-19 require a speaking order and an effective opportunity to respond; the assessee's failure to reply did not cure that defect. Despite delay in filing the writ petition, the statutory infirmity in the cancellation order prevailed. The matter was remitted to the show cause stage, with liberty to reply or file pending returns and discharge dues, interest, late fee and penalty.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory statutory notice for best judgment assessment; absence of proof of service rendered the assessment orders invalid.
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that a best judgment assessment under Section 62 cannot stand unless the statutory notice preceding the assessment is proved to have been served in a mode recognised by Section 169. A mere recital in the assessment order that notice was issued was insufficient, and the respondents produced no material showing valid service before completion of the assessments. In the absence of proof of service of the mandatory notice, the impugned assessment orders were quashed and the matter was left open for fresh consideration after due notice, if warranted.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail in GST fraud prosecution upheld where custody, documentary evidence, and no real risk justified liberty pending trial.
Case-Laws
GST
In a GST prosecution alleging fraudulent input tax credit through fake invoices, the High Court held that the seriousness of an economic offence alone was not a sufficient ground to deny bail. Relying on Supreme Court guidance on bail and the right to speedy trial under Article 21, the Court noted that the accused had been in custody for about four months, had clean antecedents, and the case rested largely on documentary and electronic evidence. As there was no material showing a real risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or evading trial, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the Court found liberty should prevail pending trial and granted bail subject to safeguards.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ remedy and GST appeal route: tribunal availability did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit for statutory appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition may be entertained against an appealable GST order when the appellate tribunal is not functional, but only to prevent a litigant from being left remediless. Once the GST Appellate Tribunal became functional and the appeal period was specifically notified, the dispute had to be pursued before that statutory forum. The earlier non-availability of the tribunal did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit required for an appeal under Section 112(8), and the writ court could not permit circumvention of that condition. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the GSTAT within the notified timeline after making the requisite deposit, with the merits of the first appellate order left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory arrest safeguards and mechanical remand invalidated the detention, making habeas corpus maintainable despite remand.
Case-Laws
GST
HC found the arrest illegal because the mandatory safeguards were not followed: the arrest memo did not show that the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing as an annexure, the alleged grounds carried no separate CBIC-DIN, and the memo did not properly record the place of arrest or service of the grounds on the nominated relative with the prescribed details. The Court also held that the remand order was mechanical, as the Magistrate relied on the seriousness of the offence without examining whether the arrest safeguards had been complied with. On that basis, the arrest, detention and remand were quashed and habeas corpus was held maintainable despite remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional attachment lapses on expiry of statutory period, allowing the bank account holder to operate the account.
Case-Laws
GST
The provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account had ceased to operate by efflux of the statutory period under Section 83(2), so the attachment could not continue beyond one year. The Court therefore declared the attachment lapsed by operation of law and held that the petitioner was entitled to operate the bank account, while leaving all other contentions open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ maintainability upheld where demand exceeded the show cause notice and exemption pleas were ignored, leading to remand.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held the writ petition maintainable despite the statutory appeal remedy because the challenge fell within recognised exceptions for breach of natural justice and statutory limits. It quashed the show cause notice and adjudication order after finding that the final demand travelled beyond the notice and imposed tax, interest and penalty on grounds not specified therein, contrary to the statutory restriction. The Court also held that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the petitioner's specific exemption plea under the notification and exemption provision, making the order unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite supply taxation bars separate reverse charge levy on CIF import services; show cause notice set aside.
Case-Laws
GST
A separate reverse charge levy on the service component of CIF imports under Notifications Nos. 8/2017 and 10/2017 was held unsustainable because the same element was already included within the composite supply of imported goods. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohit Minerals, the HC applied the principle that the service aspect cannot be taxed separately in a manner that conflicts with the statutory scheme of composite supply. As the show cause notice was founded on that invalid levy, it could not be sustained and was set aside, bringing the proceedings to an end.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite show cause notice for multiple tax periods held invalid, and the resulting order was set aside.
Case-Laws
GST
A composite show cause notice under Section 74 covering multiple tax periods or financial years was held impermissible. The HC relied on its earlier rulings to hold that clubbing distinct tax periods in one proceeding creates a jurisdictional defect, and a notice issued on that basis is illegal. Because the foundational show cause notice was invalid, the consequential Order-in-Original could not survive and was set aside. Liberty was reserved to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, with all contentions kept open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Res judicata in anti-profiteering proceedings barred reopening the same project, period and respondent after prior final adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
Res judicata barred a fresh anti-profiteering complaint concerning the same project, same respondent and same period because profiteering in “Migsun Wynn” had already been investigated by the DGAP, finally adjudicated by the NAA, and affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal held that the complainant's alleged profiteering was already included in the earlier quantified amount, so reopening the same cause of action would create parallel proceedings and amount to abuse of process. As the complaint was also withdrawn, the proceedings were held not maintainable, no fresh investigation was required, and the DGAP was directed to take no further action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Appellate Tribunal dress code prescribed for authorised representatives, with a summer exemption from wearing a black coat.
Circulars
GST
Authorised representatives appearing before the GST Appellate Tribunal must wear their professional dress, if any, and otherwise comply with the prescribed black-coat dress code: men must appear in a close-collared or open-collared black coat with white shirt and black tie, and women in a black coat over a white sari or other white dress. During the summer season from 15 April to 31 August, the black coat may be dispensed with when appearing before a Bench of the Tribunal. The rule also clarifies that a regular employee of a party does not include a departmental officer appointed as an authorised representative, and strict compliance is required.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proof of demand is essential in corruption cases; recovery alone cannot sustain conviction without reliable acceptance evidence.
Case-Laws
GST
Proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient without reliable evidence of demand and voluntary acceptance. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal because the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, material witnesses did not support its case in material particulars, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked. The conspiracy charge also failed because there was no cogent evidence of prior agreement or meeting of minds. The Court further accepted an adverse inference from the non-production of the alleged tape-recorded conversation and declined to interfere with the High Court's plausible view.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Omission of Rule 96(10) ended pending refund proceedings, and demands based solely on that rule were quashed.
Case-Laws
GST
Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without any saving clause, meant that pending proceedings based solely on alleged contravention of that rule could not continue. The Court applied Rayala Corporation and Kolhapur Canesugar Works to hold that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not preserve proceedings after omission of a rule, as distinct from repeal of a Central Act or Regulation. As the order-in-original and consequential demands rested entirely on the omitted rule, they were unsustainable and were quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Criminal liability of advocates for professional acts rejected; HC quashes proceedings where counsel filed a statutory appeal
Case-Laws
GST
An advocate cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy merely because he filed a statutory appeal and tendered pre-deposit while acting for a client in a professional capacity. The HC held that such conduct, even if the chosen appellate route was later considered legally unacceptable by the tax officer, remained a legal act undertaken as counsel and did not by itself establish any nexus with the client's business or an agreement to commit an offence. Treating professional advocacy as conspiracy would undermine the independence of the Bar and the right to legal assistance. The FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order were quashed insofar as they related to the advocate.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST assessment order invalid without DIN; delayed writ entertained on terms with partial tax deposit and remand
Case-Laws
GST
An assessment order under the GST regime was held vitiated because it did not bear a Document Identification Number, following the Court's earlier view that absence of a DIN invalidates the order. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh assessment after hearing the taxpayer. On the delayed writ challenge and disputed portal service, the Court did not finally resolve the service controversy but held that petitions attacking assessment orders with patent irregularities could be entertained on terms. Relief was made conditional on deposit of 20% of the disputed tax, with the period of writ pendency excluded for limitation and liberty preserved to raise all contentions before the Assessing Officer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition maintainability denied where final orders existed and statutory appeal, with pre-deposit, was the proper remedy.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition challenging search, seizure, suspension of registration, bank attachment and related proceedings was not entertained because the controversy had already moved to the final adjudication orders under the statute. Once those final orders were passed, the petitioners were required to pursue the appellate remedy, where the same grounds remained available. The Court also noted that no appeal could be treated as pending because the stated appeal had not satisfied the statutory pre-deposit requirement. In these circumstances, there was no basis to invoke writ jurisdiction again over the same subject matter, and the petition was dismissed with liberty to challenge the final orders in appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Puja samagri exemption is narrowly construed; rose water sold for ritual use was classified as taxable essential oil solution.
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the puja samagri exemption is confined to the specific goods expressly listed in the notification, because the word “namely” makes the enumeration exhaustive. Rose water marketed as “Pooja Panneer” was therefore not exempt merely because it was used for ritual purposes or sold in devotional packaging. On tariff classification, the product was found not to be perfumes or toilet waters under heading 3303, and not an aqueous distillate obtained by steam distillation. On the material produced, it was classified as an aqueous solution of essential oils under tariff item 3301 9079 and subjected to GST at 18%.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on temple licence to collect human hair held taxable as a service; goods exemption did not apply.
Case-Laws
GST
AAR admitted a registered recipient's advance ruling application, relying on Calcutta HC authority that a registered person can seek ruling on merits. It held that the temple's grant of licence to collect human hair from its premises was a separate commercial arrangement, distinct from devotees' religious tonsuring, and constituted a supply of service under GST because the temple transferred a right for consideration in the course of business. The exemption for human hair as goods did not apply because the transaction was not a sale of goods but a licensed service. The question whether the temple was business premises was not answered as it fell outside the limited scope of advance ruling jurisdiction.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Confiscation proceedings require prior tax determination; show cause notice issued without it was held without jurisdiction.
Case-Laws
GST
A High Court held that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the Act, 2017 cannot be initiated merely for an alleged violation of Section 35 without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. Because the show cause notice was issued without satisfying that jurisdictional requirement, it was held to be without jurisdiction. Interference at the notice stage was therefore justified, and the show cause notice and consequential confiscation order were quashed, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory arrest documentation and grounds of arrest requirements under GST law must be strictly complied with, or remand fails.
Case-Laws
GST
Arrest under the CGST Act was held unlawful where the arrest memo did not properly disclose the grounds of arrest, the grounds were not shown as an annexure, the place of arrest was omitted, and electronic DIN-backed communication was not established. The Court found the later system-generated form prima facie suspicious and treated these defects as non-compliance with mandatory arrest procedure. On that basis, the detention and remand were declared illegal and unconstitutional, the remand order was quashed, and liberty was given to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory maximum penalty under GST cannot be doubled across CGST and SGST for the same contravention.
Case-Laws
GST
Penalty under Section 125 of the GST Act could not be imposed separately under CGST and SGST beyond the statutory maximum for the same contravention. The High Court held that a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under CGST plus a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST was not justified where the provision prescribed a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000. The original penalty order was therefore unsustainable, and the consequential appellate order also could not stand. Both orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advance ruling barred when the same input tax credit issue was already pending in enforcement proceedings.
Case-Laws
GST
Advance ruling was barred where the same input tax credit question was already pending in enforcement proceedings against the applicant. The Authority held that, under the proviso to section 98(2), an advance ruling cannot be admitted on a question already pending in proceedings under the Act in the applicant's case. Because the jurisdictional authority had already initiated action on admissibility of input tax credit for construction of the hotel building, and the applicant did not dispute that fact, the application was rejected without any ruling on the merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Plastic packing article classification places PP boxes under 39231090 and lids, caps, covers under 39235090.
Case-Laws
GST
Polypropylene packing boxes were treated as plastic packing articles under Chapter 39 because the material used was polypropylene and the manufacturing process produced moulded plastic goods. On that basis, the boxes were classified under heading 3923 and, as they did not fit any more specific sub-heading for boxes, cases or crates, were placed in tariff item 39231090. The associated plastic stoppers, lids, caps and covers were separately classified under the specific sub-heading for plastic closures in heading 3923 and, absent a more specific entry, under tariff item 39235090.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =