Author: admin_gst

Section 74(10) requires impugned order within limitation; DRC-07 post-order summary under Rule 142 permitted; appeal under Section 107 allowed
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 74(10) requires the impugned order to be issued within the limitation period but not the subsequent DRC-07, which is a post-order electronic summary under Rule 142; deemed service under Section 169 (including electronic communication) suffices for issuance. The court recognise

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Consolidation of single SCN across years upheld where alleged fraudulent ITC of Rs 41 crore; appeal allowed under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld that consolidation of a single SCN for multiple years is permissible where Input Tax Credit in excess of Rs. 41 crores is alleged to have been fraudulently availed; the primary allegation against the Petitioner mirrors that precedent. The court recorded that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anticipatory bail granted in GST fraud probe over fake invoices, falsified e-way bills and wrongful input tax credit claims
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a GST-related prosecution alleging fraudulent invoicing, falsified e-way bills and wrongful Input Tax Credit claims, holding custodial interrogation unwarranted at this stage. The court found the investigation rested predominantly on documentary and digital records-including GST returns, invoices,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund deposit with interest and reconsider alleged wrongful blocking of ITC; representation to be decided by 15 Oct 2025
Case-Laws
GST
HC directed refund of the deposit with interest and consideration of alleged wrongful negative blocking of ITC where the amount was collected against the Petitioner's will and purportedly contravened applicable CBIC guidance. The Court found an undue delay in adjudicating the Petitioner's representation and ordered the Petitioner to appear before the Ad

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition held maintainable despite alternative remedies; EOW ordered to investigate alleged impersonation and misuse of petitioner's GST number
Case-Laws
GST
The HC found the petition maintainable notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies and directed investigation into alleged impersonation and misuse of the Petitioner's GST number by a third party. The court held that the complaint falls within the investigatory jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and order

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Show-cause notice with one-day hearing violated natural justice; party given 30 days and personal hearing for fresh order
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of a show-cause notice with one day's hearing notice and post-hearing/email communications violated the principles of natural justice. The writ petition was disposed of while declining to strike down the SCN on jurisdictional grounds. The Petitioner is directed to file a substantive reply to the SCN within 30 days (deadline: 30

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed: appeal barred as filed beyond maximum condonable period; Article 226 cannot override statutory limitation rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the order refusing to entertain an appeal, holding the appeal was instituted beyond the maximum condonable period and no non-communication of the Order-in-Original was established. The court found the reasons for delay insufficient and concluded the appeal exceeded the statutory extended limitation per

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ dismissed as premature; petitioner must file detailed reply with documents within 30 days before tax authority examines issues
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition as premature, finding the petitioner's challenge to the departmental show-cause notice unsuited to judicial adjudication absent an administrative reply and supporting documentary evidence. The court held that factual and taxability issues concerning the overseas construction contract and place-of-supply determina

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 93 requires notice to legal representative before tax determination; SCN against deceased proprietor void ab initio
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that a SCN and subsequent determination issued against a deceased proprietor were void ab initio because s.93 of the GST Act contemplates liability of a legal representative only where the business is continued or discontinued and does not authorize determination against a dead person or recovery from heirs without procedural compliance. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory –System Enhancement for Order-Based Refunds
GST
Dated:- 28-8-2025

1. As per the available functionality, taxpayers could claim refunds under the category “On account of Assessment/ Enforcement/ Appeal/Revision/ Any Other Order” (ASSORD) only if:
* The cumulative amount of the Demand ID showed a negative balance (i.e., refund eligible).
* The status of the Demand ID was “Refund Due”.
This restriction prevented taxpayers from claiming refunds when individual components (minor heads) of a demand showed negative balances and the overall cumulative balance was zero or positive.
2. For the above scenario, several references have been made by the tax payers and tax officers stating that the taxpayers are not able to c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Diagnostic test kits classed under HSN 3002, taxable as instruments; concessional GST 5% under Schedule I Sr. No. 180
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the three diagnostic test kits are properly classifiable under HSN 3002 rather than HSN 3822, applying the principle affirmed by the SC in analogous precedent. Consequently, the applicant's goods do not fall within the residual chemical preparations heading and are taxable as instruments/reagents for diagnostic purposes. The applicant is d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ dismissed as withdrawn where s.73(9) challenge delayed statutory deposit; petitioners ordered to pay Rs.100,000 costs
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed as withdrawn a writ challenging an order passed by the proper officer under s.73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, where the departmental appellate tribunal had not been constituted. The Court noted that, at the time of filing, a departmental circular dated 11 July 2024 was already extant and the petitioners had delayed payment of the amount

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order quashed; allow rectification of Form GSTR-1 clerical error reflecting sister concern turnover; accept and process manual filing
Case-Laws
GST
The HC found that the petitioner committed an inadvertent clerical error in Form GSTR-1 by reflecting the turnover of a sister concern, causing discrepancies with Form GSTR-3B and resultant disallowance of excess ITC claims. The impugned order dated 12.02.2025 in GST APL-04 issued by the respondent is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ allowed; penalty under Section 129(1)(b) CGST quashed for relying on unverified third-party statement without notice
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and quashing the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act as unsustainable. The court held the revenue accepted an unverified, uncorroborated statement from a third party as conclusive without issuing notice to or verifying representations of the appellants, and failed to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic credit ledger payment counts as valid pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(b), appeal reinstated after wrongful rejection
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition, quashing the appellate authority's order that rejected the petitioner's appeal for failure to pay the required pre-deposit in cash, and restored the appeal on file. The court held that payment from the electronic credit ledger satisfies the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act and that elect

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Approved resolution plan conclusively bars subsequent claims; Section 74(9) CGST assessment quashed to protect insolvency process
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that, pursuant to the Supreme Court precedent, approval of a Resolution Plan by the NCLT conclusively bars subsequent claims by other creditors as such claims would disrupt the resolution process. Applying that principle, the Court found no justification to sustain a post-approval tax assessment and accordingly quashed the impugned asses

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty under s.125 GST quashed for denial of hearing; case remanded for fresh adjudication and fair hearing
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the impugned penalty levy under s.125, GST Act, was vitiated for denial of audi alteram partem; noting that an appeal had been dismissed as time-barred, the court nevertheless quashed the orders dated 18.12.2024 and 28.07.2025 for failure to afford an opportunity of hearing. The petition is allowed by way of remand: the matter is returned to the com

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed as moot and non-maintainable; Section 70 summons and Section 69 arrest powers examined; revision remedy available
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed petition as infructuous and non-maintainable. The Court noted the petitioner had been summoned under Section 70 of the CGST/GGST Acts, subjected to prolonged questioning and retention followed by arrest, and that Sections 70 and 69 confer summon and arrest powers respectively, with Section 70 inquiries treated as judicial proceed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kerala CM Vijayan seeks PM Modi’s immediate intervention on 'GST revenue loss'
GST
Dated:- 27-8-2025
PTI
Thiruvananthapuram, Aug 27 (PTI) Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Wednesday sought the immediate intervention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to address the concerns of states that may face revenue loss when the Centre revises the GST rate structure.
Vijayan urged the union government and the prime minister to assess Kerala’s likely revenue loss and provide compensation as part of the proposed GST reforms. He said he had already written to Modi highlighting the state’s concerns.
“The union government needs to address the concerns of states facing revenue loss while revising GST rates,” he told reporters here

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ple by cutting taxes on essential items.
“The loss of revenue to states will hamper welfare initiatives for the poor and vulnerable. Therefore, states must be compensated,” he said.
In his latest letter to the PM, Vijayan, without specifying the date, also urged that the benefits of lower tax rates be passed on to consumers through reduced prices of commodities and services.
He pointed out that the revenue-mobilising capacity of states is already limited compared to their expenditure obligations in key socio-economic sectors, and that restrictions on open market borrowings further constrain resource mobilisation.
“In these circumstances, sudden revenue loss due to GST rate revision will further weaken states’ finances. Necessary

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

AIDCF Calls for GST Relief to Safeguard Cable TV Industry
GST
Dated:- 27-8-2025
PTI
Urges Government to Reduce GST Slab from 18% to 5% in Line with Next-Generation GST Reforms
NEW DELHI, Aug. 27, 2025 /PRNewswire/ The All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), the apex body representing India's Digital Multi-System Operators (MSOs), has appealed to the Government of India for a reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate on Cable TV services from the existing 18% slab to 5%. This request has been placed in the context of Hon'ble Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi Ji's vision of introducing next-generation GST reforms aimed at simplifying the structure, rationalising rates, and easing the tax burden on citizens.
AIDC

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, and unfair competition from unregulated digital platforms operating outside the regulatory and fiscal framework. Rising satellite channel costs have already pushed consumer prices upward making Cable TV increasingly unaffordable for ordinary households.
AIDCF pointed out that reducing the GST slab to 5% will directly benefit consumers by keeping monthly bills affordable, while at the same time supporting the financial health of MSOs and Local Cable Operators (LCOs). The relief in working capital will allow these largely MSME operators to invest in spreading wired broadband, thereby strengthening the government's Digital India mission and ensuring universal access to affordable information and entertainment. The step will also provide a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessments quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication after Section 168A notification invalidated; safeguard procedural rights on reconsideration
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the writ petitions by quashing the impugned assessment orders and remitting the matters to the respondents for fresh adjudication on merits. The court noted the petitioners' failure to respond to preceding show-cause notices and considered the applicability of notifications issued under Section 168A. In view of a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appellate authority cannot revive IGST demand without fresh show-cause notice; outer limitation expired – Sections 107(11), 75(7), 16(5)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the appellate authority's suo motu restoration of an IGST demand, previously dropped by the adjudicating authority, was unsustainable under the statutory scheme and Section 75(7); the appellate body could not lawfully revive the demand without issuing a fresh show-cause notice as contemplated by the second proviso to Section

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition allowed; assessment set aside for breach of natural justice and delay under Section 73; matter remanded
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the assessment order dated 29.01.2025 and its summary, holding the respondent's proceedings vitiated by breach of natural justice and excessive delay. The court found the petitioner reasonably unaware of portal-notices uploaded after approximately 1½ years and held the statutory/administrative timeline for proceedings

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Revenue cannot withhold sanctioned refund based solely on departmental opinion under Section 54(11); release refund per Appellate Authority order
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the revenue/department cannot withhold a sanctioned refund based solely on its opinion under Section 54(11) of the Act; where the Appellate Authority has permitted the refund and there is no appeal or stay or other proceeding challenging that order, the departmental opinion does not justify retention of the refun

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition dismissed upholding penalties under section 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b); release application to proper officer decided in two working days
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging levy of penalties under section 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, upholding the proper officer's decision based on his reasonable belief that the consignor's documents did not substantiate legitimacy of the goods in transit. The court accepted evidentiary inconsistencies, in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =