Author: admin_gst

Interest on delayed tax refunds starts from fresh refund application date under Sections 54 and 56
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that interest on delayed tax refunds is to be calculated from the date of receipt of the fresh refund application, not from the date of approval. Under Sections 54 and 56, interest at 6% accrues if the refund is not paid within 60 days from the original order by the proper officer, and at 9% if the refund is delayed beyond 60 days following a fresh application after an appellate order. The appellate order is accorded the status of an original order for interest purposes. The writ petition was allowed by quashing the impugned appellate order and directing the respondents to pay the petitioner interest amounts of Rs. 2,18,44,148/- from 14.06.2022 and Rs. 4,10,94,646/- from 12.10.2022 on the respective delayed refunds. The petition was disposed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Validity of Composite Notices Under Section 74 GST Confirmed with Extended Limitation Periods
Case-Laws
GST
The HC examined the validity of composite notices and orders under section 74 of the GST enactment, affirming their foundation in prior Central Excise, Finance Act, and Customs Act provisions. The court acknowledged the self-contained nature of the GST provisions and upheld the established jurisprudence on extended limitation periods. It was noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal had not expired as the summary was issued after the critical date, allowing the petitioner additional time to file. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within 30 days, which the appellate authority must entertain and dispose of on merits, given the petitioner's partial payment of tax, interest, and penalty. The petition was accordingly disposed of with directions to consider the appeal substantively.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rajya Sabha returns Manipur budget, GST bill
GST
Dated:- 11-8-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Aug 11 (PTI) The Rajya Sabha on Monday returned the Manipur Appropriation Bill, 2025, and The Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2025 amid opposition protests over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) issue.
A brief debate on the Bills was also held.
The Manipur Appropriation Bill authorises payment and appropriation of certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund of the State of Manipur for services of the financial year 2025-26.
The Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which seeks to implement the decisions approved by the GST Council, would replace the Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kerala urges Centre to permit Rs 7,900 cr addl borrowing this fiscal; cites expenses ahead of Onam
GST
Dated:- 11-8-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Aug 11 (PTI) Kerala on Monday urged the Centre to allow the state to borrow an additional Rs 7,900 crore as well as restore around Rs 4,300 crore that has been deducted in relation to certain adjustments.
The state, which saw its debt-GSDP (Gross State Domestic Product) ratio decline to 34.13 per cent in 2024-25 from 38.47 per cent in 2020-21, has sought the amounts citing the significant impact of the deductions on its fiscal health and its ability to meet essential expenditures especially in view of huge cash outflow in connection with the upcoming Onam festival.
Kerala Finance Minister K

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hways.
“We request to allow the state to borrow Rs 6,000 crore in the current financial year without any conditions, over and above the Net Borrowing Ceiling fixed by the Government of India for 2025-26,” the memorandum said.
Further, Balagopal has sought permission for raising Rs 1,877.57 crore through Open Market Borrowing (OMB) and cited the amount pertained to variation in the GSDP.
Among other demands, the state has requested the Union government to urgently restore Rs 3,323 crore which was deducted in connection with non-contribution to the Guarantee Redemption Fund (GRF).
States are required to make contributions to the GRF which is also a parameter for determining states' borrowing ceilings. As per the memorandum, Rs 965.16

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty upheld under Section 129(1)(b) GST for transit without e-way bill; modified to Section 129(1)(a) due to documents present
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act for transit of goods without an e-way bill, finding no evidence of technical error or inadvertence, as no e-way bill was generated prior to movement. The presence of a tax invoice with the goods established the petitioner as the owner, and the temporary suspension of the purchaser's registration during transit did not adversely affect liability. The Court relied on precedent attributing an intent to evade tax in absence of an e-way bill at inspection, validating the penalty order. However, the Court modified the impugned orders, directing that proceedings be treated under Section 129(1)(a) instead of 129(1)(b), as the requisite documents accompanied the consignment. The writ petition was allowed in part, with no further interference to the penalty order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Criminal Proceedings for Unpaid Sale Consideration Don't Amount to Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 406 IPC
Case-Laws
GST
The SC held that criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant for recovery of unpaid sale consideration do not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, as mere sale transactions do not amount to entrustment of goods. The Court criticized the High Court for permitting criminal proceedings in a pure civil dispute, emphasizing that such resort amounts to abuse of process. The SC underscored established jurisprudence clarifying the distinction between civil claims and criminal breach of trust. Observations by the High Court suggesting criminal prosecution as a substitute for civil recovery were condemned. Consequently, the SC set aside the impugned High Court order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application, partially allowing the appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cancellation of GST Registration Set Aside for Non-Compliance with Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to non-assignment of reasons and violation of natural justice. The court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns over six months must comply with the procedural safeguards under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Since the petitioner expressed willingness to submit all pending returns and pay applicable tax, interest, and late fees, the HC directed the petitioner to approach the competent officer within two months to seek restoration of registration. Upon such compliance, the officer is mandated to consider dropping cancellation proceedings and restore the GST registration by issuing the prescribed order under Form GST REG-20. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Approved resolution plans bar GST department from raising new tax demands under Section 73 CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, the GST department is precluded from raising additional tax demands, as this would undermine the resolution process. Consequently, the assessment order dated December 29, 2023, issued under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 for the 2017-18 tax period, was quashed. The petition was allowed, affirming that post-approval of the resolution plan, no further claims by creditors, including tax authorities, can be entertained.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail Granted in GST Evasion Case Under Section 132, Subject to Cooperation and Personal Bond Conditions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted bail to the applicant accused of GST evasion by claiming false input tax credit, an offence punishable with imprisonment up to five years and compoundable. The applicant provided an undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and expressed willingness to pay the compounding fee, including GST liability and penalty. Considering the applicant's lack of prior criminal record and prolonged incarceration since 18.06.2025, the court found sufficient grounds to enlarge him on bail without prejudice to the trial's merits. Bail was allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate or court, subject to compliance with imposed conditions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention and penalty order quashed due to expired e-way bill; valid new e-way bill presented before seizure order
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the detention and penalty order concerning the seized goods due to the expiration of the initial e-way bill. The petitioner had generated and presented a subsequent valid e-way bill prior to the issuance of the seizure and penalty order. The authorities failed to consider the new e-way bill and did not establish any intent to evade tax. Consequently, the impugned order was held unsustainable in law, resulting in the petition being allowed and the seizure and penalty order set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Regular Bail Granted for Forgery and GST Evasion Under Strict Statutory Bond Conditions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted regular bail to the petitioners accused of forgery, fraud involving signatures, and GST evasion, despite sufficient prima facie evidence against them. The court recognized that pre-trial custody should not equate to post-conviction punishment and noted the petitioners' detention since 20.03.2025. Considering the nature of the offenses and the applicable penal provisions, the court found no justification for continued pre-trial incarceration. Bail was allowed subject to strict compliance with statutory bond conditions, including mandatory court appearances and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, police officials, or others connected to the case. The petitioners were directed to adhere to these terms to maintain bail status.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed; objections against property attachment must be filed within 15 days under Rule 159 of CGST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held the petition to be not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for filing objections against property attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The petitioner was directed to file objections within 15 days, failing which the petition would not be entertained. The competent authority was mandated to consider and decide the objections in accordance with law within three months. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Order Without Signature Declared Invalid Under CGST Act Sections 160 and 169, Fresh Assessment Ordered
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.01.2025 due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature, rendering the order invalid. Citing precedent from multiple Division Bench rulings, the Court reaffirmed that the signature on an assessment order is mandatory and cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The matter was remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh assessment, mandating issuance of notice and proper signing of the new order. The limitation period is tolled from the date of the original impugned order until receipt of this judgment. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Order Set Aside for Lack of Personal Hearing and Improper Service Under GST Section 169
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned assessment order dated 21.01.2025 due to violation of natural justice principles, as the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing and was unaware of the show cause notice served solely via the GST Portal. The Court held that mere portal upload does not constitute effective service when no response is received, and the assessing officer must consider alternative service modes under Section 169 of the GST Act to ensure proper notice. The Court emphasized that passing ex parte orders after fulfilling only formalities leads to unnecessary litigation. Noting that 55% of the disputed tax had already been recovered, the HC remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, disposing of the petition accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Second Bail Application Dismissed Under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of CGST Act Due to Non-Compliance
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the second bail application filed under sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, noting that the first bail application was not pressed after the applicant failed to comply with a prior court order to appear before the concerned court within two weeks. The court observed that the applicant remains out of custody and has flouted the consent order dated 2.1.2023. Given the applicant's non-compliance and absence from custody, the HC found no grounds to entertain the bail application on merit and consequently dismissed the second bail plea as devoid of merit.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assignment of Leasehold Rights in Industrial Plots Is Transfer of Property Benefits, Not Supply of Services Under GST Section 7(1)(a)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the assignment by sale and transfer of leasehold rights of industrial plots allotted by a government agency constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not supply of services. Consequently, Section 7(1)(a) of the Act, along with Clause 5(b) of Schedule 2 and Clause 5 of Schedule 3, does not apply, and such transactions are not subject to GST levy under Section 9. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2024 issued under Section 74 in Form GST DRC-07, thereby allowing the petition. This decision aligns with prior rulings, including the setting aside of a show cause notice dated 03.08.2024, confirming that the transaction falls outside the ambit of taxable supply under GST law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancelled for non-filing returns; restoration possible after pending dues and compliance under Rule 22(4) proviso
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to non-filing of returns for six continuous months. However, relying on the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Court held that if the petitioner submits all pending returns and pays the outstanding tax along with interest and late fees, the empowered officer has jurisdiction to drop cancellation proceedings and restore registration by issuing Form GST REG-20. The writ petition was disposed of with a directive that the petitioner may approach the competent authority within two months to seek restoration of GST registration upon compliance with the prescribed formalities.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cancellation of GST Registration Set Aside for Lack of Natural Justice and Non-Application of Mind
Case-Laws
GST
The HC rejected the respondents' contention regarding time-barred appeal and held the cancellation of GST registration invalid due to non-application of mind and violation of natural justice principles. The court found that the quasi-judicial authority failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, rendering the cancellation order non-speaking and legally infirm. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2022, 12.09.2022, 22.08.2024, and 03.09.2024 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Superintendent, Danapur, for fresh adjudication, directing a thorough consideration of the petitioner's contentions and completion of proceedings within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was allowed by way of remand, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness and statutory requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cancellation of GST Registration Under Section 29(2)(c) Valid; Restoration Allowed Under Rule 22(4) Proviso
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) CGST Act for non-filing of returns for six continuous months is valid. However, pursuant to the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 CGST Rules, if the petitioner is willing to furnish all pending returns and pay the outstanding tax, interest, and late fees, the empowered officer has jurisdiction to drop the cancellation proceedings and restore registration by issuing Form GST REG-20. The court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months to seek restoration of GST registration by complying with the prescribed formalities. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, providing a remedy for reinstatement upon fulfillment of statutory requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: Central GST proceedings valid under Sections 6(2)(b), 67(1), and 73 of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the appeal challenging the issuance of the SCN under Section 73 of the CGST Act. It was held that the Central GST authorities had validly initiated proceedings first, including inspection under Section 67(1) and issuance of a show cause notice, thereby precluding the State GST authorities from initiating parallel proceedings on the same subject matter as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The State proceedings, including issuance of DRC-01 and DRC-02, were closed without adjudication. Consequently, the Central GST proceedings were not barred, and the appellant's contention lacked merit. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Service of show cause notices only via GST portal violates Section 169, denying fair hearing and voiding ex parte orders
Case-Laws
GST
The HC found that service of show cause notices solely by uploading on the GST portal, without exploring alternate modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act, violated principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing. The impugned ex parte order dated 17.12.2024 was set aside due to inadequate service and lack of personal hearing. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order. The setting aside of the order will take effect only upon such payment. The Court emphasized that reliance on a single mode of notice without due diligence to ensure effective service undermines the objectives of the GST Act and leads to unnecessary litigation, thereby wasting judicial and administrative resources. The petition was disposed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ex-parte GST penalty orders under Sections 47 and 125 set aside for lack of proper notice and hearing opportunity
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the ex-parte assessment and penalty orders dated 26.12.2024 passed under the GST Act, holding that non-service of physical notices and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner had been subjected to a late fee under Section 47, and the imposition of penalty under Section 125 without proper notice was found unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advance Ruling Void for Nondisclosure Under Section 104; Appeal Dismissed for Suppression of Facts
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR upheld the rejection of the appellant's claim regarding the classification of supply and applicable GST rate on plastic toys, as well as the entitlement to ITC on debit notes issued in 2020-21 for transactions in 2018-19. The authority found that the appellant failed to disclose all material facts as mandated under Section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017, constituting suppression and misrepresentation. Consequently, the Advance Ruling was declared void for non-compliance with statutory disclosure requirements. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that applications for advance ruling must meet the threshold under Section 98(2) and fully disclose relevant facts to enable proper adjudication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC Allowed on Inputs and Services for Concrete Tower Supporting Plant Machinery Under Section 17 CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR held that the appellant is entitled to avail ITC on inputs and input services used for constructing the concrete tower supporting and erecting VCV lines at its factory for manufacturing EHV cables. The concrete structure was deemed an essential foundation and structural support for plant and machinery, falling within the scope of the second explanation to section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, such ITC does not fall under the restrictions of section 17(5)(c) and (d). The ruling analogized the eligibility of ITC on foundations and supports to the allowance of ITC on ducts and manholes used in OFCs, affirming that these inputs and services are integral to plant and machinery and thus eligible for ITC. The appellant's claim for ITC on construction of the concrete tower was allowed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Applicant building metro stations not a “Government Authority” under Para 2(zf) of Notification 12/2017-CT (Rate)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant, a commercial entity engaged in constructing metro stations, does not qualify as a “Government Authority” under Paragraph-2(zf) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended. The applicant neither performs functions entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W nor to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution, nor has any agreement with the local municipal corporation (BBMP) to carry out such functions. The constructed metro stations remain the exclusive property of the applicant and do not constitute public amenities vested in the local government. Consequently, the grant of concession under the MOU dated 04.06.2018 to the concessionaire is not eligible for GST exemption under the relevant exemption notification, as the fundamental criterion of being a “Government Authority” is not satisfied.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =