Author: admin_gst

Input tax credit re-credit cannot be blocked by portal limitations; undisputed entitlement must be restored manually.
Case-Laws
GST
Substantive entitlement to re-credit of input tax credit cannot be denied merely because the common portal lacks a corresponding functionality. The High Court noted that the department itself accepted that the taxpayer had sought re-credit after rejection of refund claims and had not pursued any further appeal; the only obstacle was the absence of an option to issue PMT-03 or restore the amount to the electronic credit ledger. Once entitlement to re-credit was undisputed, any procedural lapse was immaterial, and the Court directed restoration of the amount through manual intervention. The writ petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST portal migration from QRMP to monthly returns permitted, with backend changes and late-fee compliance required.
Case-Laws
GST
GST Common Portal functionality was addressed to allow a registered taxpayer to opt out of the QRMP Scheme and shift to regular monthly filing of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. The Court accepted that the migration could be implemented through backend changes on the portal and directed GSTN and the GST authorities to make the necessary changes. The petitioner was required to file the returns with applicable late fees and interest, while retaining liberty to seek refund before the concerned Commissionerate in accordance with law. The migration was permitted with effect from March 2026.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Overlapping GST adjudication barred where the same suppliers and ITC dispute had already been decided by State authorities.
Case-Laws
GST
Parallel Central GST adjudication could not be sustained where the same suppliers, the same alleged fake or non-existent status, and the same ITC disallowance for the same periods had already been adjudicated by the State GST Authority. Applying the principle against overlapping jurisdiction and duplicate proceedings on the same subject matter, the Court held that the later Central adjudication was unsustainable and set it aside. The Court declined to examine other issues and disposed of the connected applications accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Economic offences and bail discretion: Section 480(6) BNSS does not create an automatic right to bail.
Case-Laws
GST
Bail in a CGST prosecution alleging fake invoicing, fraudulent e-way bills and large-scale tax evasion was refused because the investigation material, including documents and Section 70 statements, prima facie showed active participation in a structured economic offence. Applying the stricter bail approach for economic offences, the HC held that the applicant's role was comparable to that of co-accused whose bail had already been declined, and that custody period alone was not decisive. The Court also held that Section 480(6) BNSS does not create an automatic or indefeasible right to bail merely because trial is incomplete within the stated period; bail in such cases remains a matter of judicial discretion.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice breach in tax adjudication: improper service of notice and denial of hearing led to quashing of recovery action.
Case-Laws
GST
Improper service of a show cause notice and denial of personal hearing vitiated the adjudication and consequential recovery notice. The High Court found that the notice was not served at the registered address or registered e-mail ID reflected in the GST records, and the respondents could not show where it had been sent. Because an adverse order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the proceedings breached natural justice. The impugned adjudication order and recovery notice were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh notice, hearing, and a speaking order in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Annual return compliance: delayed Form GSTR-9C can attract late fee where the reconciliation statement is mandatory.
Case-Laws
GST
Where Rule 80(3) applies, Form GSTR-9C forms part of the annual return required under Section 44, so filing Form GSTR-9 without the reconciliation statement amounts to failure to furnish the return by the due date. On that basis, late fee under Section 47(2) is attracted for delayed filing of Form GSTR-9C, and the challenge to the levy failed. The HC did not follow Anishia Chandrakanth and upheld the assessment, while leaving the petitioner liberty to pursue an appeal on factual aspects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite supply in CIF imports bars separate GST on ocean freight; double taxation on the service element is impermissible.
Case-Laws
GST
GST could not be levied again on a shipping line's ocean freight services for CIF imports where the freight component had already suffered customs duty in the import transaction, because the transportation service formed part of a composite supply. The Court held that taxing the same service element separately in the hands of the petitioner would amount to double taxation and would be inconsistent with the GST scheme. Relying on Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., it found that transportation and insurance in a CIF contract are naturally bundled with the supply of goods. The show-cause notice and adjudication order were quashed, and refund with interest was directed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Limitation for GST refund claims follows the law in force on the transaction date; unutilised ITC refunds use Explanation 2(e).
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the limitation provision applicable to refund claims is the one in force on the date of the underlying transaction, so the amended Explanation 2(e) to Section 54 of the CGST Act could not retrospectively curtail refund rights for periods before 1 February 2019. It further held that refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies is governed by Explanation 2(e), not Explanation 2(a), because such claims depend on credit accrual, ledger reflection, return filing and remaining unutilised. The orders rejecting the claims as time-barred were set aside and the refund applications were directed to be processed on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST advance rulings remain subject to limited writ review, and unequal tax treatment for cut tobacco could not stand.
Case-Laws
GST
An advance ruling under the GST law is binding on the applicant, but that binding effect does not bar High Court review under Article 226 on limited grounds such as jurisdictional error, error of law, breach of natural justice or perversity; such challenges to advance rulings should be listed before the Division Bench, not a Single Judge. On classification, the Court held that retaining the impugned view on cut tobacco would create unequal tax treatment for similarly placed manufacturers producing the same product, contrary to the equality principle. The advance rulings and the challenged order were set aside, and the writ appeal was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

India and Bhutan hold 7th Joint Group of Customs (JGC) meeting in Munnar, Keralam, on 20th-21st April 2026
GST
Dated:- 21-4-2026

The 7^th Joint Group of Customs (JGC) Meeting between India and Bhutan was held on 20^th-21^st April 2026 in Munnar, Kerala. The meeting was co-chaired by Mr. Yogendra Garg, Special Secretary and Member (Customs), Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), Government of India, and Mr. Sonam Jamtsho, Director General, Department of Revenue and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Royal Government of Bhutan.

India and Bhutan share close and longstanding trade relations, with India being Bhutan's largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 80% of Bhutan's total trade. Bilateral trade be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

anding (MoU) on pre-arrival exchange of customs data; strengthening of anti-smuggling mechanisms through intelligence sharing and enforcement cooperation; digitization of customs processes; and facilitation of transit cargo movement under the Electronic Cargo Tracking System (ECTS). The meeting also discussed and reviewed issues like improvement of border infrastructure, enhancing trade facilitation and harmonization & streamlining of customs procedures.

The Bhutanese delegation also visited the Kochi Port. The delegation was provided an overview of import and export procedures, including vessel berthing and container handling operations using gantry cranes. Bhutanese delegates were briefed about various aspects of maritime enforcement,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax component payment can bar recovery pending appeal, with recovery notices set aside and revenue liberty preserved.
Case-Laws
GST
Prima facie discharge of the tax component, together with a clear intention to file the statutory appeal, was held to attract the Section 112(9) bar against recovery. The High Court noted that the Electronic Liability Ledger indicated payment of the tax component covered by the first appellate order, and on that basis recovery proceedings were stayed. The Form GST DRC-13 recovery notices were set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to proceed with the appeal. Liberty was preserved for the revenue to seek further orders if any discrepancy is found in the payment of the tax component.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit dispute remitted for fresh consideration after additional documents were produced to explain transaction discrepancies.
Case-Laws
GST
Summary assessment based on inspection findings was set aside because the petitioner produced additional material, including e-way bill particulars and ledger extracts, that could explain the alleged discrepancies and support genuineness of the transactions and input tax credit claim. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with the authority directed to examine whether the documents established actual supplies and eligibility for input tax credit. Since the registration cancellation was intertwined with the assessment, it was also set aside and registration was ordered to be restored, subject to further lawful orders after reconsideration of the material produced.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Failure to consider reply and documents led to remand; fresh adjudication must stay within the show-cause notice.
Case-Laws
GST
An adjudication order was set aside because the authority failed to consider the taxpayer's replies and supporting documents on the alleged mismatch between GSTR-1 output tax and tax paid through GSTR-3B. The Court held that fresh consideration was required, with a new reply permitted, all submitted materials examined, and a personal hearing afforded before a fresh finding. It also clarified that verification from suppliers could be undertaken in accordance with law, but the authority could not travel beyond the show-cause notice. The matter was remitted for de novo adjudication, with merits left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice bars GST registration cancellation where custody prevented reply to notice and participation in personal hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancellation was set aside because the petitioner was in judicial custody during the period for replying to the show cause notice and attending personal hearing, and that custody was not disputed. The HC held that the petitioner could not effectively respond or be heard, so the cancellation order was passed in breach of natural justice. The revocation rejection was also unsustainable because it gave no reasons on that plea. The registration was directed to be restored, and the matter remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice, with liberty to the authorities 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

= = = = = = = =

GST enforcement jurisdiction upheld; classification disputes and Section 74 objections left to statutory appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
Under the GST regime, intelligence-based enforcement may be initiated by either Central or State tax authorities even where the taxpayer is registered with the other administration, so the State authority's jurisdiction to begin proceedings and issue orders was upheld. Classification disputes and objections to invocation of Section 74 involved disputed factual questions and were not entertained in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Those grounds, including the plea that the reply was not properly considered, were held to be matters for statutory appeal, and the writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

DGGI Ahmedabad Zonal Unit officials apprehend mastermind of the biggest GST refund fraud of around Rs.1,825 crore at IGI Delhi airport
GST
Dated:- 21-4-2026

Mr. Kapil Chugh the mastermind of GST refund fraud wanted in many other economic criminal cases was arrested by the DGGI, AZU, Ahmedabad, on 19^th April 2026 from IGI Airport upon returning from Dubai.

Mr. Kapil Chugh had evaded investigation and did not respond to multiple summons (22 in all) issued by DGGI, AZU, Ahmedabad and never joined investigations. He had fled to Dubai after committing GST refund fraud amounting to approximately Rs.1,825 crore across multiple jurisdictions.

Investigation conducted in the instant case has revealed that Mr. Kapil Chugh, alo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

eration, banking operations, filing of returns and submission of refund claims were handled centrally by the masterminds.

The masterminds generated fraudulent ITC by arranging fake purchase invoices without actual receipt of goods. High-value tobacco products were shown in invoices to create substantial ITC. These invoices were circulated through multiple intermediary firms forming a layered chain of transactions. The ITC so generated was passed from one entity to another through paper transactions, thereby creating an artificial trail of trading activity. This layering enabled the masterminds to introduce ineligible ITC into the GST chain and subsequently accumulate the same in selected entities which were projected as exporters, partic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

stigation revealed that the exports were largely fictitious or grossly exaggerated. E-way bills were generated using doubtful or repeated vehicle numbers and transportation documents were fabricated to support paper transactions.

Financial trail analysis revealed negligible or circular fund movement despite large-value transactions. Payments received were routed through related entities or withdrawn in cash shortly thereafter. There was no corresponding commercial pattern such as genuine supplier payments or logistics expenses. Multiple firms shared common contact numbers, IP addresses and accounting personnel, evidencing centralized control by the masterminds.

Mr. Kapil Chugh also misrepresented and inflated turnover of his export bu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Condonation of delay in GST appeal: writ relief granted where filing was prevented by circumstances beyond the assessee's control.
Case-Laws
GST
Delay in filing a statutory GST appeal was condoned in writ jurisdiction where the assessee showed that non-filing within time was due to circumstances beyond its control. The Court held that, although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, refusal to permit consideration on merits in such circumstances would cause grave prejudice. The delay was therefore condoned and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain and decide the appeal on merits. The challenge to the vires of Section 107(4) read with the notification was not pressed and was left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Reasoned adjudication requires consideration of replies; order quashed for non-application of mind and fresh hearing permitted.
Case-Laws
GST
An adjudication order confirming a demand under a show cause notice cannot stand where the authority fails to consider the taxpayer's replies and gives no cogent reasons for rejection. The High Court found complete non-application of mind because the order relied on an unexplained assumption that the matter was sub judice on merits, did not identify the supplies treated as taxable or tax-free after considering the circulars cited, and omitted discussion of all replies. The impugned order was quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh on the notice after considering all replies and granting a fresh hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 129 timelines are directory, not mandatory; delayed detention proceedings survive, while goods may be released on penalty deposit.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 129(3) was held to be directory as to the seven-day timelines for issuing notice and passing the penalty order, because the statute uses procedural deadlines to secure expedition but does not make delay fatal to jurisdiction or validity. The Court rejected the view that non-compliance automatically renders detention proceedings time-barred, and found no basis to interfere on limitation where the notice was issued within seven days and the penalty order followed on the eighth day, amounting to substantial compliance. The petitioner, being a registered dealer when the transaction began, was treated as the bona fide owner and was entitled to release of the detained goods and vehicle on deposit, under protest, of an amount equal to the penalty, with liberty to challenge the penalty order separately.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST refund rejection without deficiency memo was invalid; fresh consideration ordered under prescribed refund procedure.
Case-Laws
GST
An ex parte rejection of a GST refund claim without a deficiency memo and without affording a hearing was procedurally invalid, so the refund application had to be reconsidered in the manner prescribed by the rules. The Court noted that a subsequent refund application had been filed, a deficiency memo had been issued on that application, and it was required to be taken to its logical conclusion rather than denied on a pedantic view. The designated officer was directed to decide the refund application and related applications afresh under Rules 90 and 92, uninfluenced by the earlier rejection order or the appellate dismissal on limitation, with merits left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Grounds of arrest must be furnished as required by law; defective arrest memo cannot sustain detention or remand.
Case-Laws
GST
Non-provision of the grounds of arrest in the manner required by law rendered the arrest and continued detention unsustainable. The High Court held that the respondents' explanation of clerical error did not cure the decisive defect, because the petitioner had not been furnished the grounds of arrest as mandated by the Supreme Court and followed by the Court. As that requirement was not complied with, the remand order founded on the arrest was liable to be quashed. The remand order was quashed, the writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were given liberty 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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice in writ jurisdiction: non-speaking GST demand order set aside despite availability of appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an appellate remedy because the challenge alleged violation of natural justice through a non-speaking order. The High Court held that the alternative remedy rule is not absolute and does not bar writ intervention where reasons are absent, jurisdiction is lacking, vires is questioned, or fundamental rights are implicated. Here, the adjudicating authority had noted receipt of the reply but failed to deal with its contents or the supporting documents, and gave no reasons for rejection. The GST demand order was therefore set aside as a non-speaking order, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after personal hearing and a reasoned decision.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ jurisdiction can condone delay in a statutory appeal when statutory limitation would cause grave prejudice.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ jurisdiction can be used to condone delay in filing a statutory appeal where the delay was shown to be beyond the appellant's control and refusal to hear the matter on merits would cause grave prejudice. Although the appellate authority lacked power to condone delay beyond the statutory limit under Section 107, the High Court followed its earlier Division Bench view and intervened to prevent injustice. The 84-day delay was therefore condoned, the time-bar dismissal was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to entertain 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

= = = = = = = =

Writ relief against show cause notices is available where jurisdiction is absent and concluded advance rulings cannot be reopened without fresh fraud evidence.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ jurisdiction may be exercised against show cause notices where the notice is alleged to be without jurisdiction, pre-determined, or abusive, even if alternative statutory remedies exist. The Court treated the challenge as one to the very assumption of power and rejected objections of prematurity and disputed facts. It further held that advance rulings are binding on the applicant and jurisdictional officer unless law or facts change, and that reopening the same issues requires fresh material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. As no such material existed and the earlier adjudication had attained finality, the notices under the GST and excise laws were held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ jurisdiction cannot bypass mandatory pre-deposit once the GSTAT is functional and appeals are available.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ jurisdiction is not meant to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism when the GSTAT has become functional and a notified period for filing appeals is available. Although writ relief may be entertained where the appellate forum is non-functional to avoid leaving an aggrieved party remediless, that rationale ends once the forum is operational. The Court held that the assessee must pursue the statutory appeal and strictly comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) before the appeal can be entertained. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to deposit the requisite amount and file the appeal within the notified timeline, leaving the merits of the appellate order open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =