Author: admin_gst

Taxpayer's ITC Credit Challenge Rejected as Administrative Mechanism Proves Transparent and Procedurally Sound Under Section 86A
Case-Laws
GST
The HC adjudicated a dispute concerning ITC blocking under CGST Act, 2017, s. 86A. The court examined the petitioner's challenge to the respondents' order regarding a blocked credit of Rs. 46,01,645/-. Upon careful review, the HC found that the petitioner's fundamental concerns were adequately addressed through clarifications provided by the respondents. The court's reasoning focused on the nature of the credit debit and the procedural transparency of the blocking mechanism. Consequently, the HC disposed of the petition, effectively resolving the dispute without mandating substantial further action, thereby affirming the administrative process's integrity in the electronic credit registration system.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Gaps in E-Way Bill Compliance Don't Automatically Justify GST Penalties Without Proven Tax Evasion Intent
Case-Laws
GST
HC adjudicated a GST penalty case involving non-completion of e-way bill part-B. The court determined that mere technical non-compliance with Rule 138 regarding e-way bill documentation does not automatically justify penalty assessment under Section 129. Without substantive evidence demonstrating a deliberate tax evasion attempt, the administrative order imposing penalty was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the HC set aside the Assistant Commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling that procedural omissions alone cannot trigger punitive fiscal measures without proving intentional tax avoidance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Challenging GST Assessment: Stone-Boulder Sales Price Comparison Invalidated Under Section 61 of Jharkhand GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that GST-ASMT-10 notices issued under Section 61 of Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 comparing petitioners' stone-boulder sales price with market price are ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The court determined that merely selling goods at a lower than market price does not automatically constitute a taxable discrepancy. The notices were deemed improper as they exceeded statutory powers, and the court quashed the notices, effectively ruling in favor of the petitioners by invalidating the tax department's assessment approach.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Long-term Industrial Plot Leasehold Rights Transfer Deemed Non-Taxable Supply Under GST Act Section 7(1)(a)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that assignment of long-term leasehold rights in an industrial plot by a lessee to a third-party assignee constitutes a transfer of immovable property benefits, not a taxable supply under GST Act. Relying on precedent in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce case, the Court determined that such transaction falls outside section 7(1)(a) read with Schedules II and III, thereby exempting the transfer from GST levy. Consequently, the show cause notice was quashed, and the petition was allowed, affirming the non-applicability of GST to leasehold rights transfer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Claim Resolution Ordered: Administrative Process to Address Tax Dispute Within Eight Weeks of Filing
Case-Laws
GST
HC directs second respondent to resolve petitioner's representation regarding GST claim within eight weeks, following precedent set in prior case involving educational institute. Tax authorities instructed to process invoices as standard, without engaging in underlying dispute. Consistent with previous judicial guidance, the court provides opportunity for administrative resolution while maintaining procedural neutrality. Petition disposed of with specific time-bound directive for administrative action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Credit Dispute Overturned: Procedural Errors Invalidate Order, Mandate Fair Reconsideration of Petitioner's Claims
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition, reversing the Input Tax Credit (ITC) order due to procedural irregularities. The court found respondent failed to properly consider petitioner's submissions and credit note, violating principles of natural justice. Relying on precedent from a similar tax dispute, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the tax authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, ensuring fair evaluation of all submitted documents and contentions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Notice Challenge Rejected: Statutory Appeal Route Preferred Over Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction Under Section 74/73
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging tax SCN and final order under WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court held that the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy through appeal under Section 74/73, and cannot bypass such efficacious remedy by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Despite relying on a Madras HC precedent, the petition was rejected due to availability of alternative remedy and lack of exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention. The court emphasized that all contested issues can be adequately addressed through the prescribed appellate mechanism, rendering the writ petition non-maintainable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Intermediary Status Clarified: IGST Refund Claim Upheld Under Section 13(8) and Existing Precedents
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that the petitioner is not an “intermediary” under IGST Act, Section 13(8) and Section 2(13). Based on an identical CESTAT order that had attained finality and CBIC Circular clarifying service tax and GST intermediary provisions, the court found no basis to differentiate the petitioner's case. The court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim with applicable interest within 4 weeks, effectively allowing the petitioner's claim for IGST refund.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Contractors Win GST Reimbursement Rights for Pre-2017 Infrastructure Projects, Securing Fair Compensation for Indirect Transactions
Case-Laws
GST
HC allows contractor's petition, mandating reimbursement of GST impact for infrastructure projects executed before GST implementation. The court held that contractors awarded contracts prior to 01.07.2017 are entitled to GST reimbursement on indirect transactions. The respondent must release withheld amount of Rs. 19,86,44,336/- with statutory interest within six weeks and pay Rs. 50,000/- costs. The decision affirms contractual entitlements and protects contractors from undue financial burden arising from mid-contract GST regime changes.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Recovery Action Invalidated: Section 62(2) Nullifies Assessment Order After Timely GSTR 3B Filing and Tax Payment
Case-Laws
GST
HC invalidated the tax recovery action against the petitioner, finding the assessment order withdrawn under Section 62(2) as a matter of legal fiction. The court determined that since the original tax assessment order lost legal efficacy after the petitioner timely filed GSTR 3B and paid taxes within statutory period, the subsequent recovery proceedings were procedurally improper. The respondent tax authority acted ultra vires by initiating recovery without issuing prior notice, particularly after approximately five years from the original demand date. The HC directed respondent authorities to file their response within two weeks and scheduled further hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

‘God-Sent Tax’ unites India, funds security measures: Himanta on Cong’s ‘Gabbar Singh Tax’ jab
GST
Dated:- 9-5-2025
PTI
Guwahati, May 9 (PTI) Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Friday said that the GST regime, brought by the BJP-led Central government, funds the country’s security and resilience, and called it ‘God-Sent Tax’.
Sarma also dismissed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's description of GST as ‘Gabbar Singh Tax’.
The chief minister also lauded the Indian armed forces for crushing all attempts by Pakistan to strike at multiple targets in the country.
“Rafale jets and S-400 systems don’t just appear — they are built on the strength of our taxpayers,” Sarma posted on X, referring to the French fighter jets and th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Excess Stock Discovery Under GST: Tax Assessment via Sections 73/74, Not Punitive Section 130
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that when excess stock is discovered during a survey under GST Act section 67, proceedings must be initiated under sections 73/74, not section 130. The statutory framework mandates that if a registered dealer fails to account for goods, the Proper Officer shall determine tax liability through sections 73/74. The court emphasized that GST Act is a comprehensive code, and section 130 cannot be invoked when specific provisions exist for addressing undeclared stock. The petitioner's challenge to proceedings was consequently allowed, establishing a clear legal principle that excess stock discovery triggers assessment proceedings rather than punitive actions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Credit Dispute Resolved: Procedural Delays Cannot Deny Legitimate Input Tax Credit Under GST Section 16(5)
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the writ petition challenging input tax credit rejection, remanding the matter to the tax authority. The court relied on a prior Division Bench judgment interpreting Section 16(5) of the GST Act, which held that taxpayers can avail tax credits despite procedural delays. The assessment order dated 30.04.2024 was set aside, directing the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment consistent with the legal interpretation of the non-obstante clause in the statutory provision.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pre-Deposit Compliance Required: Petitioner Must Deposit Remaining Amount Within 30 Days Under Section 107 of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that the petitioner must deposit the remaining pre-deposit amount within 30 days under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017. Upon compliance, the appellate authority shall review the interim reply and supporting documents, and adjudicate the appeal on merits regarding availment of ITC. The petitioner had already deposited Rs. 2.5 crores, satisfying a substantial portion of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The petition was disposed of with directions for further procedural steps.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Development Rights Transfer Taxable Under GST: No Exemption for Pre-Completion Consideration and Upheld Recovery Mechanism
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismisses petitioner's challenge to GST notification regarding tax recovery and development agreement. The court held that transfer of development rights is amenable to GST, and the petitioner cannot claim exemption since consideration was received before completion certificate. The court found no violation of natural justice or procedural irregularities. The state's contention that construction services are liable for GST under reverse charge mechanism was upheld. The writ application was dismissed, confirming the tax liability for the financial year 2018-19 and extending the recovery time limit until 31.03.2024.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Legal Representatives Must Be Notified Before Tax Determination Against Deceased Taxpayer Under Section 93 Liability Rules
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that a tax determination cannot be made against a deceased person. Section 93 addresses liability of legal representatives only for ongoing or discontinued businesses, but does not authorize determination against a deceased individual. Issuance of show cause notice (SCN) must be made to legal representatives, and determination must occur after seeking their response. The present case's determination, which was made against the deceased without notifying legal representatives, was deemed invalid and the petition was consequently allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Process Streamlined: Standardized Verification, 7-Day Approval, Balanced Approach to Preventing Fraud
Circulars
GST – States
The GoI's GST Policy Wing issued comprehensive instructions for processing GST registration applications to standardize verification procedures. Key directives include: (1) Officers must strictly adhere to prescribed document lists in FORM GST REG-01, (2) Avoid seeking additional documents beyond the specified list, (3) Complete applications must be approved within 7 working days, (4) Risky applications require physical verification within 30 days, and (5) Officers must obtain senior management approval before requesting documents beyond the standard requirements. The guidelines aim to balance preventing fraudulent registrations while facilitating genuine business registrations through a streamlined, transparent process.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Authorities Instructed to Withdraw Appeals When Full Tax Paid Under Section 73, Preserving Taxpayer Relief Benefits
Circulars
GST – States
In cases where tax has been fully paid under Section 73 of CGST Act, and departmental appeals are solely related to interest or penalty calculations, the tax authority may withdraw such appeals. The instruction clarifies that taxpayers remain eligible for Section 128A benefits even if the department has initiated appellate proceedings, provided all other statutory conditions are met. The primary objective is to reduce litigation and prevent denial of relief based on technical grounds, ensuring taxpayers can avail waiver provisions for interest and penalty pertaining to Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST fraud: ED raids in Jharkhand, West Bengal
GST
Dated:- 8-5-2025
PTI
New Delhi, May 8 (PTI) The Enforcement Directorate on Thursday conducted searches in Jharkhand and West Bengal as part of a money laundering investigation linked to generation of “fraudulent” GST invoices, official sources said.
At least nine locations in Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Kolkata are being raided.
The ED suspects that the accused Shiv Kumar Deora, Sumit Gupta and Amit Gupta allegedly generated fake invoice

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC Refund Allowed: Section 54(3)(ii) Enables Full Credit Recovery for Identical Input and Output Supplies
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that Section 54(3)(ii) of CGST Act permits refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) where input and output supplies are identical, rejecting restrictive interpretations in Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST. The court found the respondent's orders erroneously relied on inapplicable circular provisions and improperly rejected refund claims. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders, directing the respondent to refund the accumulated ITC with applicable interest within a specified timeframe, thereby affirming taxpayer's statutory entitlement to ITC refund under the inverted duty structure provisions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appellate Rights Upheld: Statutory Deposit Prerequisite for GST Tribunal Appeal Under Section 112(9)
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the appeal with a procedural directive regarding statutory stay under Section 112(9) of the Act of 2017. The court determined that upon the appointment of the President or State President of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner may file an appeal after statutory deposit. The authority is mandated to adjudicate the appeal strictly in accordance with law, with the statutory stay remaining operative until appeal resolution. The court's order effectively preserves the petitioner's appellate rights while maintaining procedural compliance with indirect tax regulations.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Credits Restored: Section 16 Amendments Allow Retrospective Claims for Delayed Returns Filed Between June 2018-March 2019
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that pursuant to clause (5) of Section 16 inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 and the circular dated 15.10.2024, the respondents' orders are set aside. The court directed respondents to permit petitioner's input tax credits for delayed returns filed during June 2018 to March 2019, effectively allowing retrospective tax credit claims despite initial administrative rejection. The judicial intervention ensures compliance with recent statutory amendments and provides relief to the taxpayer by mandating administrative reconsideration of previously denied input tax credit claims.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Corporate Merger Voids Show Cause Notice: Authority Must Reissue Proceedings Against Correct Amalgamated Legal Entity
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the respondent authority's issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) to a non-existent company post-amalgamation was procedurally flawed. Despite initial claims of unawareness, the respondent's counsel acknowledged knowledge of the amalgamation. The court set aside the impugned order and granted liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the resultant entity in compliance with legal protocols, effectively nullifying the previous SCN and providing an opportunity for procedural rectification.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Strikes Down Rule 86A Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger, Mandates Immediate Unblocking and Fair Hearing Process
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition challenging Rule 86A blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL), finding the order invalid due to lack of pre-decisional hearing and absence of independent, cogent reasons. The court held that reliance on borrowed satisfaction from enforcement reports without providing specific grounds constitutes an arbitrary action. Respondents were directed to immediately unblock the petitioner's ECL, enabling the petitioner to file returns, thus upholding principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in tax administration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Amnesty Scheme Under Section 128(A) Provides Relief for Tax Arrears, Ensures Fair Reconsideration of Undisputed Dues
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration. The court recognized the applicability of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of CGST Act for tax years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The decision emphasized that undisputed tax arrears cannot be demanded arbitrarily when express legal provisions exist under Section 75(12) of GST Acts. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme, with directions to reconsider the matter in accordance with established legal principles.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =