Author: admin_gst

Show cause notice must quantify interest before adjudication; later demand beyond the notice was quashed.
Case-Laws
GST
Where the authorities were already aware of the relevant period when issuing the show cause notice, failure to quantify interest in that notice was held to bar its later inclusion in the adjudication order, because the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded cannot exceed what is specified in the notice. The provision permitting interest to be imposed even if not stated in the order was found inapplicable, as it addresses omission in the adjudication order and not omission in the show cause notice itself. On that basis, the interest demand and the consequential notice and order were quashed, with liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural time limit cannot defeat retrospective input tax credit relief; rectification application restored for fresh merits review.
Case-Laws
GST
A High Court held that the six-month time limit for filing a rectification application under Notification No. 22/2024 is procedural and cannot defeat a substantive input tax credit benefit recognised by the retrospective insertion of Sections 16(5) and 16(6). On that basis, rejection of the application as time-barred was not sustained, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration on merits after notice. The respondent was permitted to verify actual entitlement, including whether input tax credit had in fact been availed and whether other statutory conditions were met.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST penalty cannot exceed the statutory maximum under Section 125 when split between CGST and SGST.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 125 of the CGST framework was construed as prescribing a single maximum general penalty of Rs. 25,000, so the penalty could not be split into separate CGST and SGST penalties to exceed that statutory cap. The High Court therefore held that imposing Rs. 25,000 under CGST and a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST under the same provision was unjustified. The penalty order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with all available grounds left open to the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Intermediary services treated as taxable in India, excluding export status and refund of unutilized input tax credit.
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR held that the appellant's sales, marketing and HR consulting services were intermediary services under Section 2(13), because the agreement involved three parties and the appellant was facilitating supply by the foreign entity to the Indian client. As intermediary services, the place of supply was in India, so the services were taxable at 18% IGST and did not qualify as export of services or zero-rated supply. On that basis, the claim for refund of unutilized input tax credit failed because the statutory foundation for refund was absent. The advance ruling was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Reason to believe under Rule 86A must be independently recorded before blocking input tax credit, or the order fails.
Case-Laws
GST
Blocking input tax credit under Rule 86A requires the competent authority itself to record, in writing, reasons to believe based on relevant material and an independent application of mind. An order stating only that action was taken “as per recommendation” of a Superintendent fails this mandatory jurisdictional requirement and shows that the authority acted on dictate rather than formed its own belief. Material referred to in the counter-affidavit or alert circular cannot cure the defect when the impugned order itself discloses no objective reason. The ITC-blocking order was set aside, with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST appeal limitation cannot be extended beyond the statutory condonable period; Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded.
Case-Laws
GST
Under the GST appellate scheme, the High Court held that the statute is a self-contained code and the appellate authority can condone delay only up to one additional month beyond the prescribed three-month period. Because the outer limit is fixed by the GST Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is impliedly excluded and cannot be used to enlarge time further. An appeal filed beyond that maximum condonable period is outside jurisdiction, so the appellate order was left undisturbed and the writ petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration restoration cannot be withheld merely because a departmental appeal is pending without stay
Case-Laws
GST
An appellate order directing restoration of GST registration must be implemented unless it is stayed, because mere filing of a further departmental appeal does not create an automatic stay in the absence of statutory provision. The Court found the revenue's refusal to comply with the unstayed direction arbitrary and unreasonable, especially where the appellate authority had already set aside the cancellation refusal and positively ordered restoration. The registration was therefore directed to be revived forthwith, subject to the outcome of the pending departmental appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advance ruling maintainability and wetland conversion fee taxability under reverse charge were rejected as exempt.
Case-Laws
GST
An advance ruling application was held non-admissible because it sought to regularise a completed transaction: the prescribed fee had already been paid before the ruling request, so the matter lay outside the advance ruling mechanism. On taxability, the permission granted for conversion of wetland to dry land was treated as a specific regulatory service conferring a direct private benefit, making the statutory fee consideration for supply of service. The activity was held outside the functions entrusted to Panchayats under Article 243G and the Eleventh Schedule, so the claimed exemption failed. Accordingly, GST was held payable under reverse charge on the fee.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice in Section 74 adjudication requires personal hearing before adverse order; assessment set aside and remitted.
Case-Laws
GST
Adjudication under Section 74 was vitiated by breach of natural justice because no personal hearing was afforded before an adverse order, even though replies had been filed. Applying the principle that a hearing must precede prejudicial adjudication, the HC set aside the assessment order without examining the merits and permitted the petitioners to file a fresh reply. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to conclude the proceedings afresh after granting personal hearing and then pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ jurisdiction is not entertained where an efficacious statutory appeal exists and no natural justice breach is shown.
Case-Laws
GST
Where a statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not entertained against a show cause notice or an adjudication order unless there is breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, or a vires challenge. Here, the petitioner received the show cause notice, participated in the adjudication, and a speaking order was passed after hearing; the Court found no denial of natural justice. Objections to the consolidated notice and the adjudicating authority's competence were held to be matters for the appellate authority. The writ petition was therefore dismissed, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal under Section 107 against the Order-in-Original.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST dept issues tax demand of Rs 124 cr to Spicejet, slaps showcause notice for delay in return filing
GST
Dated:- 29-5-2026
PTI
Gurugram, May 29 (PTI) The GST department has issued a tax demand of Rs 124.65 crore to struggling airline SpiceJet for non-filing of GST returns for the past several months, an official said on Friday.

Initiating action against the airline for failing to file GST returns on time, the GST department has issued a show-cause notice to cancel the company's GST registration, the official said.

According to the GST department, SpiceJet consistently committed irregularities in filing GST returns and submitted them late. Consequently, a provisional assessment was filed under Section 62 of the CGST and S

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST departmental appeal limits and Zonal Law Committees updated for review, appeal selection, and uniform appellate practice.
Circulars
GST – States
Monetary limits continue to govern departmental filing of appeals, applications and special leave petitions under the UPGST framework: GSTAT matters below Rs. 20,00,000, High Court matters below Rs. 1,00,00,000 and Supreme Court matters below Rs. 2,00,00,000 are ordinarily not to be pursued. The limits do not apply where a provision, rule, regulation, order, notification, direction or circular is treated as unconstitutional, or where the dispute concerns valuation, classification, refunds, place of supply, recurring interpretative issues, adverse costs or observations, or any matter the Commissioner considers necessary in the interest of justice or revenue. Zonal Law Committees are to review first appellate orders, meet at least twice monthly, record minutes and identify cases for appeal or best-practice circulation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill threshold clarified for intra-State goods movement; job work transfers remain exempt from generation requirement.
Circulars
GST – States
An e-way bill is required for intra-State movement of goods in West Bengal where the consignment value exceeds Rs. 50,000, with effect from 01.06.2026. Movements relating to job work remain exempt, including goods sent to a job-worker, moved between job-workers, or returned to the principal after job work. For non-job-work intra-State movements at or below the threshold, no e-way bill is required. The clarification operationalises the earlier notification under the West Bengal GST Rules.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite show cause notice for multiple tax periods held invalid, and the resulting order was set aside.
Case-Laws
GST
A composite show cause notice under Section 74 covering multiple tax periods or financial years was held impermissible. The HC relied on its earlier rulings to hold that clubbing distinct tax periods in one proceeding creates a jurisdictional defect, and a notice issued on that basis is illegal. Because the foundational show cause notice was invalid, the consequential Order-in-Original could not survive and was set aside. Liberty was reserved to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, with all contentions kept open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory statutory notice for best judgment assessment; absence of proof of service rendered the assessment orders invalid.
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that a best judgment assessment under Section 62 cannot stand unless the statutory notice preceding the assessment is proved to have been served in a mode recognised by Section 169. A mere recital in the assessment order that notice was issued was insufficient, and the respondents produced no material showing valid service before completion of the assessments. In the absence of proof of service of the mandatory notice, the impugned assessment orders were quashed and the matter was left open for fresh consideration after due notice, if warranted.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ maintainability upheld where demand exceeded the show cause notice and exemption pleas were ignored, leading to remand.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held the writ petition maintainable despite the statutory appeal remedy because the challenge fell within recognised exceptions for breach of natural justice and statutory limits. It quashed the show cause notice and adjudication order after finding that the final demand travelled beyond the notice and imposed tax, interest and penalty on grounds not specified therein, contrary to the statutory restriction. The Court also held that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the petitioner's specific exemption plea under the notification and exemption provision, making the order unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail in GST fraud prosecution upheld where custody, documentary evidence, and no real risk justified liberty pending trial.
Case-Laws
GST
In a GST prosecution alleging fraudulent input tax credit through fake invoices, the High Court held that the seriousness of an economic offence alone was not a sufficient ground to deny bail. Relying on Supreme Court guidance on bail and the right to speedy trial under Article 21, the Court noted that the accused had been in custody for about four months, had clean antecedents, and the case rested largely on documentary and electronic evidence. As there was no material showing a real risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or evading trial, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the Court found liberty should prevail pending trial and granted bail subject to safeguards.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional attachment lapses on expiry of statutory period, allowing the bank account holder to operate the account.
Case-Laws
GST
The provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account had ceased to operate by efflux of the statutory period under Section 83(2), so the attachment could not continue beyond one year. The Court therefore declared the attachment lapsed by operation of law and held that the petitioner was entitled to operate the bank account, while leaving all other contentions open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite supply taxation bars separate reverse charge levy on CIF import services; show cause notice set aside.
Case-Laws
GST
A separate reverse charge levy on the service component of CIF imports under Notifications Nos. 8/2017 and 10/2017 was held unsustainable because the same element was already included within the composite supply of imported goods. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohit Minerals, the HC applied the principle that the service aspect cannot be taxed separately in a manner that conflicts with the statutory scheme of composite supply. As the show cause notice was founded on that invalid levy, it could not be sustained and was set aside, bringing the proceedings to an end.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory arrest safeguards and mechanical remand invalidated the detention, making habeas corpus maintainable despite remand.
Case-Laws
GST
HC found the arrest illegal because the mandatory safeguards were not followed: the arrest memo did not show that the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing as an annexure, the alleged grounds carried no separate CBIC-DIN, and the memo did not properly record the place of arrest or service of the grounds on the nominated relative with the prescribed details. The Court also held that the remand order was mechanical, as the Magistrate relied on the seriousness of the offence without examining whether the arrest safeguards had been complied with. On that basis, the arrest, detention and remand were quashed and habeas corpus was held maintainable despite remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Res judicata in anti-profiteering proceedings barred reopening the same project, period and respondent after prior final adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
Res judicata barred a fresh anti-profiteering complaint concerning the same project, same respondent and same period because profiteering in “Migsun Wynn” had already been investigated by the DGAP, finally adjudicated by the NAA, and affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal held that the complainant's alleged profiteering was already included in the earlier quantified amount, so reopening the same cause of action would create parallel proceedings and amount to abuse of process. As the complaint was also withdrawn, the proceedings were held not maintainable, no fresh investigation was required, and the DGAP was directed to take no further action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ remedy and GST appeal route: tribunal availability did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit for statutory appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition may be entertained against an appealable GST order when the appellate tribunal is not functional, but only to prevent a litigant from being left remediless. Once the GST Appellate Tribunal became functional and the appeal period was specifically notified, the dispute had to be pursued before that statutory forum. The earlier non-availability of the tribunal did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit required for an appeal under Section 112(8), and the writ court could not permit circumvention of that condition. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the GSTAT within the notified timeline after making the requisite deposit, with the merits of the first appellate order left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation requires a speaking order and precise notice of default to satisfy natural justice.
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns was quashed because the show cause notice did not disclose the specific period of default and the cancellation order gave no reasons beyond reproducing the statutory ground. The High Court held that cancellation carries adverse civil consequences, so Rule 22 and Form GST REG-19 require a speaking order and an effective opportunity to respond; the assessee's failure to reply did not cure that defect. Despite delay in filing the writ petition, the statutory infirmity in the cancellation order prevailed. The matter was remitted to the show cause stage, with liberty to reply or file pending returns and discharge dues, interest, late fee and penalty.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Appellate Tribunal dress code prescribed for authorised representatives, with a summer exemption from wearing a black coat.
Circulars
GST
Authorised representatives appearing before the GST Appellate Tribunal must wear their professional dress, if any, and otherwise comply with the prescribed black-coat dress code: men must appear in a close-collared or open-collared black coat with white shirt and black tie, and women in a black coat over a white sari or other white dress. During the summer season from 15 April to 31 August, the black coat may be dispensed with when appearing before a Bench of the Tribunal. The rule also clarifies that a regular employee of a party does not include a departmental officer appointed as an authorised representative, and strict compliance is required.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on temple licence to collect human hair held taxable as a service; goods exemption did not apply.
Case-Laws
GST
AAR admitted a registered recipient's advance ruling application, relying on Calcutta HC authority that a registered person can seek ruling on merits. It held that the temple's grant of licence to collect human hair from its premises was a separate commercial arrangement, distinct from devotees' religious tonsuring, and constituted a supply of service under GST because the temple transferred a right for consideration in the course of business. The exemption for human hair as goods did not apply because the transaction was not a sale of goods but a licensed service. The question whether the temple was business premises was not answered as it fell outside the limited scope of advance ruling jurisdiction.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =