Author: admin_gst

WPI inflation falls to (-) 1.21 pc in Oct on GST cut, favourable base
GST
Dated:- 14-11-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Nov 14 (PTI) Wholesale price inflation (WPI) fell to (-) 1 .21 per cent in October, driven by a decline in prices of food articles like pulses and vegetables, as well as lower fuel and manufactured items' prices, government data showed on Friday.
WPI-based inflation was 0.13 per cent in September and 2.75 per cent in October last year.
“The negative rate of inflation in October 2025, is primarily due to decrease in prices of food articles, crude petroleum & natural gas, electricity, mineral oils and manufacture of basic metals etc ,” the industry ministry said in a statement.
According to WPI data, deflation in food a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

daily use mass consumption items were cut as part of the tax rate rationalisation under which the four-tier tax structure was brought down to just 2 slabs of 5 and 18 per cent.
The tax cuts which lowered prices of goods, plus a favourable inflation base of last year, has pulled down both wholesale and retail inflation.
Data released last week showed, retail inflation was at an all-time low of 0.25 per cent in October, driven down by GST rate cuts and a high base of last year. In September retail or consumer price index inflation was 1.44 per cent.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which takes into account retail inflation, had kept benchmark policy rates unchanged at 5.5 per cent last month.
The decline in both retail and WPI inflat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication after breach of natural justice; petitioner must deposit Rs.25,000
Case-Laws
GST
HC remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, setting aside the impugned order and directing fresh adjudication because the petitioner was not afforded audi alteram partem due to failure to file a reply to the show cause notice. The Court found a breach of natural justice and required that the adjudicator afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and decide the matter on merits. Remand is conditional on the petitioner depositing Rs.25,000 with the Delhi GST Department as costs for delay. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with directions for expeditious re-adjudication consistent with principles of fair hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention and seizure under Section 129 GST quashed where genuine import documents and e-way bill later produced
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that detention and seizure under section 129 of the GST Act was unwarranted where goods were accompanied by genuine import documents and an e-way bill subsequently produced before the seizure order; the record showed the vehicle and goods transported from one State to another and no dispute as to quality, quantity or weight. The court found no mens rea to evade tax arising merely from a change in place of destination or from a technical glitch in generating the e-way bill. Consequently, the impugned orders issued by the respondents were quashed and the petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Adjudication order set aside for confirming demand beyond show-cause notice; remand for fresh hearing under Section 75(7)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the appeal as time-barred but allowed the petition insofar as the impugned adjudication order violated Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by confirming a demand (Rs. 6,52,259.04) exceeding the amount and grounds specified in the show-cause notice (Rs. 2,34,626.52). The court held the defect as substantive and not cured by mere indication of a reply date where the petitioner pleaded non-receipt of the notice. The adjudication order was set aside and the matter remitted to Respondent No.4 for issuance of fresh hearing opportunity, consideration of the petitioner's response, and passing of a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 74 invocation requires clear allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression; notices defective, Section 73 recovery possible
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed impugned show cause notices and orders issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, holding that invocation of the extended limitation provision requires clear allegation that non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund or wrongful ITC availing arose from fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The notices and orders failed to allege those essential elements and used language of “determination” suggesting predetermination rather than the statutory requirement to “specify” sums payable, rendering procedural source-of-liability defective. Because Section 74 was improperly invoked, the writ petition succeeds; the revenue remains at liberty to pursue recovery under other provisions, including Section 73, if legally permissible.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition dismissed challenging penalty under s.122 CGST for fraudulent ITC via bogus firms; appeal lies under s.107 CGST
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging imposition of penalty under s.122 CGST, finding fraudulent availment of input tax credit through creation and operation of non-existent bogus firms by the petitioner and associates. The court held that matters involving complex transactions and voluminous evidence arising from investigatory findings are ordinarily unsuitable for writ relief and are more appropriately addressed through statutory appellate remedies; the impugned order is appealable under s.107 CGST. The HC further upheld the validity of Circular No.254/11/2025 appointing the proper officer, observing the Additional Commissioner was empowered to issue the show cause notice under s.122. Writ relief was refused and the petition dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

DGGI Delhi Zonal Unit uncovers racket for fraudulently availaing Rs. 645 crore ITC; Key operator arrested
GST
Dated:- 14-11-2025

The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Delhi Zonal Unit, has uncovered a massive case of fraudulent availment and passing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) through a web of 229 dummy GST-registered firms, controlled and operated by a Delhi-based syndicate.
Acting on credible intelligence, DGGI officers conducted coordinated search operations at multiple premises across Delhi, unearthing huge cache of incriminating documents, digital devices, and ledgers that established the operation of non-existent firms engaged in issuing invoices without actual supply of goods or services. This included 162 m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismisses challenge to GST cancellation but grants fresh hearing after Section 107 appeal rejected for delay
Case-Laws
GST
In HC, the petition challenging cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was dismissed insofar as the statutory appeal under Section 107 was rejected solely for delay in filing; the impugned order of cancellation remains operative. For ends of justice, the Court granted the petitioner an equitable opportunity to be heard and directed the departmental authority to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner by email or registered post, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks from issuance. The petition was disposed of accordingly, subject to compliance with the Court's directions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition allowed; multiple adjudication orders and single show-cause notice quashed, directing consequential action for implementation consistent with law
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition, quashed the impugned adjudication orders and the show-cause notice, and directed appropriate consequential action. Specifically, the Court set aside Adjudication Order No. DCCT(Audit)-4.9/GST/DRC-7/T.No./2024-25 dated 31.08.2024 and Adjudication Order No. JCCT/DGSTO-4/ACCT(AUDIT)-4.6/GST/U-73/T/2024-25 dated 19.07.2024, together with Show Cause Notice No. ADCOM/ENF/ACCT-21/DRC-01/INS 1547/2023-24 dated 23.11.2023. The HC found disposal by quashing appropriate in the context of the issuance of a single SCN for multiple assessment years and the subsequent adjudications by different officers, and issued directions for implementation of the order consistent with law. Petition allowed; parties anonymized herein as Petitioner and Respondents.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner granted bail under conditions despite Section 132 offences; prolonged custody since 18.04.2025 deemed unjustified
Case-Laws
GST
The HC grants the petitioner bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate and compliance with any imposed conditions. The court notes the offences under Section 132 expose liability up to five years' imprisonment but recognizes economic offences require stern treatment; however the allegations (operation of multiple bogus firms and wrongful availing/passing of input tax credit causing alleged loss) remain to be proved. Having been in custody since 18.04.2025 and where prosecution evidence is predominantly documentary and electronic, continued detention is unjustified as violative of Article 21 and the principle that bail is the norm and incarceration the exception; petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 130 cannot replace assessment under Sections 73/74; Section 35(6) mandates tax determination for unrecorded goods
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act, initiated against the petitioner following a survey that disclosed excess unrecorded stock, were unsustainable; where goods are not recorded in statutory accounts, section 35(6) mandates determination of tax and invocation of the adjudicatory provisions of sections 73/74 mutatis mutandis. The court concluded the GST enactment is a self-contained code prescribing remedial measures for unaccounted goods and that section 130 cannot be employed in lieu of the assessment/penalty route under sections 73/74. The impugned order was quashed and the petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2 held for creating fake GST firms, claiming Rs 11.79 cr Input Tax Credit
GST
Dated:- 13-11-2025
PTI
Hyderabad, Nov 13 (PTI) Two persons have been arrested for allegedly being part of an inter-state network that created 10 fake GST-registered firms and fraudulently claimed Rs 11.79 crore Input Tax Credit (ITC), the police said on Thursday.
According to a release from the Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, the accused used forged documents to register the firms and generate fake invoices and fabricated turnovers, causing a loss of Rs 11.79 crore to the government.
The network operated across several states, using fake Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, electricity bills, rental agreements, and other forged documents. They also manipulat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order quashes penalty under Section 129(1)(b); directs recalculation under Section 129(1)(a) where e-way bill and invoice identify registered dealer
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 and allowed the petition, holding that where goods were accompanied by an e-way bill and tax invoice identifying a registered dealer, any liability could only arise under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; the Adjudicating Authority erred in computing penalty under Section 129(1)(b). The matter is remitted to the tax authorities to quantify the penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks of the order. The petition is disposed of; parties are directed to comply with the remittal for calculation of the appropriate penalty.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

93-day delay condoned due to consultant incapacitation supported by psychiatrist certificate; appellate order set aside, appeal restored
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' explanation for a 93-day delay in filing the statutory appeal – namely incapacitation of their consultant supported by a psychiatrist's certificate – was reasonable, plausible and not indicative of gross negligence or deliberate laches. The court condoned the delay, set aside the impugned appellate order dated March 29, 2025, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with directions limited to restoration of the appeal for fresh hearing before the appropriate appellate forum.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fusible interlining with 85%+ cotton classifiable under Chapter 52; textile composition test determines tariff treatment
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that fusible interlining fabric composed of 85% or more cotton is classifiable under Chapter 52 of the Tariff Schedule. Relying on the legal effect of the Tribunal's prior order and Circular No. 5/89 concerning the treatment of fusible interlinings before the insertion and after deletion of Note 2(c) to Chapter 59, the Authority concluded that such goods are to be classified according to their predominant textile material; where cotton predominates, Chapter 52 applies. The applicant's submitted laboratory test establishing textile composition governed the classification outcome, resulting in duty treatment and tariff classification under Chapter 52.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Liquidated damages under concession agreements are not consideration for taxable supply; GST not chargeable, reliance on Circular No.178/10/2022-GST
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that liquidated damages paid by the applicant to the concessionaire under the concession agreement do not constitute consideration for a taxable supply and are not subject to GST; accordingly, the concessionaire is not entitled to avail input tax credit in respect of such receipts. The Authority applied Circular No.178/10/2022-GST reasoning that where damages merely compensate for loss without any express or implied agreement by the recipient to tolerate or perform acts for the payer, such payments are a monetary compensation flow and not taxable. AAR further noted CBIC clarification on penal charges as analogous, observing the charges enforce contractual discipline for breaches. No other questions required adjudication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed for procedural abuse and failure to comply with Section 107(6)(b) pre-deposit; Order II Rule 2 CPC applied.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition challenging an ex parte order under Section 74 UPGST Act, holding the challenge misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court found the appellant pursued successive writs to evade the pre-deposit required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, failed to seek exemption from pre-deposit before the appellate authority and the apex court, and did not prosecute the statutory appeal within limitations. Applying principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the HC held the remedy of appeal and exemption were always available and deliberately not pursued; accordingly the petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and procedural abuse.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST input tax credit for lease rental of land barred under section 17(5)(d) CGST Act, covering vacant portions
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant is not entitled to claim input tax credit of GST charged on lease rental for land allotted for construction of an industrial unit, as such credit is specifically barred by section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act. The bar applies irrespective of timing (pre-construction or post-construction), to any vacant portion of the leased land reserved for the project, and extends to amounts attributable to reconstruction, renovation, addition, alteration or repairs, since “construction” encompasses those activities. The Authority rejected attempts to limit section 17(5)(d) by reference to nexus or to section 17(5)(c), noting both clauses operate independently.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retail inflation in October touches record low of 0.25 pc on GST cuts
GST
Dated:- 12-11-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Nov 12 (PTI) Retail inflation fell to a record low of 0.25 per cent in October following cut in GST rates on nearly 380 items of mass consumption coupled with subdued prices of vegetables, fruits and eggs.
October Consumer Price Index (CPI)-based inflation was lowest in the current series (base year 2012), which captures data since January 2014.
The inflation was 1.44 per cent in September and 6.21 per cent in October 2024.
According to the data released by the National Statistics Office (NSO), the food inflation declined to (-) 5.02 per cent in October.
The decline in headline inflation and food inflation during O

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

per cent), Karnataka (2.34 per cent), Punjab (1.81 per cent) and Tamil Nadu (1.29 per cent).
The inflation was negative in several states, including Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.
Commenting on the data, Aditi Nayar, Chief Economist at ICRA, said the Reserve Bank's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is likely to pare its CPI inflation projection for FY2026 further from 2.6 per cent, driven by the soft sequential momentum in food prices as well as the impact of the GST rate rationalisation on several items in the CPI basket.
“This, along with the dovish tone of the October 2025 policy document, would support a 25-bps rate cut in the December 2025 policy review, unless Q2 FY2026 GDP growth surprises on the upside,” s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fresh demand on identical grounds barred when Section 61(2) explanation accepted; Section 73 notice and order quashed
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the petition is maintainable and that issuance of a fresh demand on identical grounds previously examined under Section 61 is impermissible. The court construed Section 61(2) as creating an embargo on further demands, including those under Section 73, where the taxpayer's explanation was accepted; Section 73 contains no non-obstante provision to override Section 61(2). Consequently, the show-cause notice issued under Section 73 and the consequential adjudication were vitiated. The impugned SCN dated 29 May 2024 and the resultant order dated 28 Aug 2024 are quashed, and the petition is disposed of with the petitioner granted relief.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable over alleged fraudulent ITC and clandestine clearances; petitioner directed to pursue statutory appeal
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable in view of alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit and clandestine clearance of goods, holding that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily inappropriate where complex factual investigations, voluminous evidence and potential prejudice to the exchequer and the GST regime are involved. The Court relegated the Petitioner to statutory appellate remedies, observed that large-scale ITC claims or GST evasion should be ventilated on appeal, and permitted the Petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order by 30 November 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit in accordance with law. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty Under s.129(3) GST Set Aside Where Part B E-Way Bill Not Generated Due To Technical Error, No Mens Rea
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the impugned orders imposing penalty under s.129(3) of the GST Act and allowed the petition. The court found the record established non-generation of Part B of the e-way bill due to a technical error, which was not disputed, and no authority had recorded any finding of mens rea to evade tax. Absent any proven intent to evade payment of tax, the statutory prerequisite for levy of the s.129(3) penalty was not satisfied. In consequence, the penalty and consequential orders were set aside and the petitioner's challenge succeeded.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail granted to accused under clauses (b),(c),(f),(l) of Section 132(1) CGST Act over alleged Rs.23.66 crore ITC
Case-Laws
GST
HC granted bail to the accused in respect of alleged offences under clauses (b), (c), (f) and (l) of Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, which attract maximum imprisonment of five years and fine. The Court observed the prosecution case is documentary and electronic, the allegations of wrongful availment/passing of ITC totalling Rs.23.66 crore remain to be proved, and prolonged pre-trial detention (in custody since 28.01.2025) is unwarranted given the right to speedy trial and the principle that bail is the norm. Bail was allowed subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate and compliance with imposed conditions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Remit for fresh re-examination under s.75(2) whether penalty under s.74 instead of s.73 was inappropriate; reply within 30 days.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC remitted the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration whether the petitioner, who has paid the tax and limited its dispute to imposition of penalty and applicability of machinery provisions, validly contends that proceedings under s. 74 are inappropriate and should have been initiated under s. 73; the respondent is directed to exercise powers under s. 75(2) and complete the re-examination within three months from receipt of this order. The petitioner must file a detailed reply to the notice and treat the impugned order as a show cause notice within 30 days. The petition is disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed; proceedings under Section 130 read with Section 122 and Section 35(6) upheld for unaccounted goods
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned orders instituting proceedings under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act against the respondent. Relying on statutory obligations under section 35 and sub-section (6) thereof, the Court affirmed that where a survey reveals unaccounted goods the Proper Officer may determine tax liability and invoke provisions of sections 73/74 mutatis mutandis; the Court considered but distinguished prior authorities addressing use of section 130 for excess stock and concluded there was no jurisdictional infirmity or ground to interfere with the initiation of proceedings. Petition accordingly dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =