Goods and Services Tax

Interest and costs from arbitration awards before GST are not taxable under Schedule II, clause 5(e)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the amounts received as interest and costs awarded under arbitration do not constitute a supply liable to GST, as the transactions relate to the pre-GST period and fall outside the scope of Schedule II, clause 5(e). The work contract lacked any penalty, compensation, or interest recovery provisions for delayed payments. Consequently, the applicant is not obligated to remit GST on the arbitration-awarded interest and costs. Other related contentions were deemed inapplicable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC defers ruling on Section 168A GST Act validity, awaiting Supreme Court decision on identical issues
Case-Laws
GST
The HC declined to adjudicate the constitutional validity of Section 7 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment) Act, 2020, introducing Section 168A in the GST Act, and the related Notifications Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023, as identical issues are pending before the SC. Exercising judicial discipline, the HC refrained from expressing any opinion on the vires of Section 168A or the challenged notifications. The HC directed that the petition be governed by the forthcoming SC judgment, which shall be binding on the parties. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without a substantive ruling on the merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 74 CGST Act Misapplied Without Fraud; Interim Relief Granted for Prepaid GST Liability Dispute
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the authorities improperly invoked Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the petitioner had already discharged the GST liability with interest before the show-cause notice issuance. The court emphasized that Section 74 applies only in cases involving fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, which were not established here. Given the vacancy in the State Tribunal and ongoing similar disputes in other High Courts and the Supreme Court, the HC found sufficient grounds to grant interim relief to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was admitted for hearing, acknowledging a prima facie case against the invocation of Section 74 under the present facts.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional Attachment Order Under Section 83(2) CGST Act Ceases After One Year, Bank Account Released
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the provisional attachment order issued under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, ceased to have effect after one year from the date of the order under Section 83(1). Since more than one year had elapsed since the impugned order dated April 5, 2024, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account was no longer valid. Consequently, the HC quashed and set aside the provisional attachment order, allowing the petition and directing that the attachment on the petitioner's bank account shall not operate beyond the statutory one-year period.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 161 CGST Order Set Aside for Lack of Hearing and Non-Speaking Reasons, Remanded for Fresh Consideration
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned rectification order under Section 161 of the CGST/DGST Act, finding it to be cryptic, non-speaking, and issued without affording the petitioner a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Although the Show Cause Notice and demand order were reasoned and a detailed reply was filed, the rectification order merely dismissed the application as “unsatisfactory” without reasons. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a de novo consideration of the rectification application, ensuring the petitioner is granted an opportunity for a proper hearing. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Under Article 226 Allowed Despite Alternative Remedy Due to Natural Justice Violation and Procedural Errors
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable due to violation of natural justice and non-application of mind in the impugned assessment order. The court found that the order ignored the petitioner's detailed reply and merely reiterated the show cause notice without proper consideration. Consequently, the impugned order and the related detailed order were set aside for being vitiated by procedural infirmities and lack of jurisdictional exercise. The petition was accordingly disposed of, affirming that exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy apply where there is an apparent error on the face of the record or a breach of natural justice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation set aside; petitioner allowed to file returns and pay taxes with penalty under law
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation of GST registration and declined to entertain the revocation application on the merits. The petitioner, having expressed willingness to file pending returns and pay applicable taxes with interest and penalty for specified financial years, was granted indulgence. The Court remitted the matter to the respondent authority for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to regularize tax compliance. The petition was allowed by way of remand, thereby restoring the opportunity for the petitioner to rectify defaults before any adverse final action is taken.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kerala SGST Updates Delegation for Waiver Applications Under Section 128A from March 2025 Onward
Circulars
GST – States
The Kerala SGST Commissioner amended the delegation of functions under the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically concerning the waiver scheme under newly inserted Section 128A effective 01.11.2024. The proper officer for processing waiver applications relating to notices under Section 73 remains the officer authorized under that section, while applications relating to orders under Section 73 are assigned to officers delegated under Section 79. Pursuant to Instruction No. 06/2025, these functions are now assigned to Deputy State Tax Officers/Assistant State Tax Officers within the Taxpayer Services vertical to ensure timely processing within pecuniary limits. The amendment to Circular No. 5/2023 took effect from 15.03.2025, streamlining officer responsibilities for waiver applications.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kerala GST Department implements Section 74A procedural changes for streamlined tax adjudication across departmental verticals
Circulars
GST – States
The Kerala State GST Department issued Circular No. 14/2025 implementing procedural changes for adjudication under Section 74A of the KSGST Act, 2017. Section 74A, inserted through the Kerala Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024, standardizes timeframes for tax determination and penalty relief regardless of fraud or suppression circumstances, superseding Sections 73 and 74. All show cause notices under Section 74A must be adjudicated by jurisdictional authorities within the Taxpayer Services Vertical, shifting responsibility from Intelligence, Enforcement, and Audit verticals. The circular mandates uniform numbering formats for notices and orders consistent with existing Section 73/74 procedures, utilizing the same registers and documentation systems. These administrative restructuring instructions became effective November 1, 2024, streamlining GST adjudication processes across departmental verticals.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST demand order quashed for exceeding show-cause notice amount under Section 75(7)
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed tax demand order dated April 27, 2024 for violating Section 75(7) of GST Act. Show-cause notice specified tax, interest and penalty amount of Rs. 4,80,527.36, but final demand raised Rs. 24,40,363.10, exceeding notice amount. Court held Section 75(7) mandates that tax, interest and penalty demanded in order cannot exceed amount specified in notice, and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in notice. Matter remanded to respondent authority to provide fresh hearing opportunity to petitioner and pass order in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's installment request must be considered within three weeks despite admitted liability of Rs.35,59,067
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the writ petition concerning attachment and short-payment of Rs.35,59,067. The petitioner admitted liability for the sum and requested monthly installments, but the second respondent failed to consider this representation dated 26.05.2025. The court declined to intervene against garnishee proceedings dated 15.04.2025 given the admitted liability. However, the HC directed the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation for 24 equal monthly installments within three weeks from receipt of the order, recognizing the respondent's duty to consider such applications expeditiously and protect the petitioner's interests.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detenue held in illegal custody beyond 24-hour limit violating Article 22 fundamental rights
Case-Laws
GST
HC found that the detenue was held in illegal custody by respondents beyond the constitutionally mandated 24-hour period, violating Article 22 fundamental rights. The detenue was arrested at 12:02 PM on 04.06.2025 but produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate only at 9:25 PM on 05.06.2025. The court issued show cause notice to respondents for potential contempt proceedings regarding obstruction of the Warrant Officer's duties and snatching official papers. Additional Director General GST was directed to file affidavit detailing officials present at Central Revenue Building during specified hours and CCTV installation status. Matter adjourned to 18.07.2025 for further proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST appeal delay can be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act when sufficient cause shown
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dismissing a GST appeal filed beyond the prescribed four-month limitation period under Section 107(4) of CGST Act, 2017. The Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies for condonation of delay in GST appeals, as it has not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the CGST Act. Following established precedent, the Court ruled that the appellate authority was unjustified in rejecting the appeal solely on limitation grounds without considering condonation of delay. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the condonation application.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail granted to accused in CGST evasion case upheld after chargesheet filing constituted material change in circumstances
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed petition seeking recall of bail order granted to respondent charged with CGST evasion worth crores. Petitioner argued bail was granted merely one month after rejection of second application without changed circumstances. HC held filing of chargesheet constituted material change in circumstances, shifting considerations from investigation cooperation to triple test criteria including flight risk, witness influence, and evidence tampering. Court found documentary evidence unlikely to be tampered, no flight risk demonstrated, and no witness influence potential. CMM's discretion in granting bail was properly exercised with no abuse of liberty shown or trial hampering evidenced, warranting dismissal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition seeking recall of bail order in Input Tax Credit fraud case dismissed for lack of merit
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed a petition seeking recall of a bail order in a case involving fraudulent availing of Input Tax Credit through ineligible invoices. The court distinguished between challenging bail orders on merits versus cancellation for condition violations, noting that recall requires demonstrating improper exercise of discretion while cancellation involves breach of bail conditions. The petitioner failed to establish cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary for bail cancellation. The court emphasized that evidence was documentary/electronic with no tampering risk, the accused posed no flight risk, and no witness influence concerns existed. Since the original bail order dated 17.10.2020 was well-reasoned and no misuse of bail liberty was demonstrated, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

AAR exempts subsidised canteen charges from GST under Factories Act statutory obligations framework
Case-Laws
GST
AAR ruled that subsidised canteen charges for both regular and contract employees are exempt from GST under statutory obligations framework. The Factories Act mandates canteen facilities for all workers, including contract labour, without distinction. Per CBIC Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST, perquisites provided under contractual obligations arising from statutory mandates do not constitute “supply” under Section 7 CGST Act. Consequently, partial cost recovery from employees does not alter the exemption status. Regarding input tax credit eligibility, AAR held that proviso to Section 17(5)(b)(i) CGST Act permits full ITC on inward supplies for statutory canteen operations, irrespective of cost recovery from employees, provided GST liability is not passed to employees and facility fulfills statutory obligations.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Registration cancellation overturned as suspension prevents tax recovery without evidence of evasion practices
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation order dated 6th August 2024 and the subsequent appellate order dated 21st March 2025, restoring the petitioner's registration. The court found that while registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, there was no evidence of dubious tax evasion practices. Emphasizing that suspension would be counterproductive to revenue interests as it prevents business operations and tax recovery, the court adopted a pragmatic approach. The restoration was granted conditionally, requiring the petitioner to file all outstanding returns for the default period and pay requisite taxes, interest, fines, and penalties. The court noted that respondents cannot determine final liability without filed returns, making restoration essential for proper tax administration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST officer's tax determination invalid due to improper show cause notice and denial of hearing opportunity under Section 73 and 75
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2023, finding violations of natural justice principles and statutory requirements. The court held that the Proper Officer failed to issue a valid show cause notice under Section 73, as the summary in GST DRC-01 cannot substitute for a proper SCN. The determination of tax and attached order were deemed invalid due to lack of proper authentication by the Proper Officer, creating a regulatory gap requiring digital or e-signature authentication under Rule 26(3). The court found the order contravened Section 75(4) by denying reasonable opportunity of hearing, as the DRC-01 summary left hearing date fields blank and failed to provide personal hearing opportunity despite no reply submission. The petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic Credit Ledger blocking order quashed under Rule 86A for violating natural justice principles
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the order blocking petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A, finding violation of natural justice principles. The court held that respondents failed to provide pre-decisional hearing and the impugned order lacked independent reasons to believe, impermissibly relying on borrowed satisfaction from enforcement authority reports. Following precedent in K-9-Enterprises, the court determined mandatory prerequisites under Rule 86A were not fulfilled, rendering the blocking order illegal and arbitrary. The HC directed immediate unblocking of petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger upon receipt of the order to enable filing of returns. Petition was allowed with the impugned order being quashed entirely.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition dismissed as effective statutory appeal remedy available to Commissioner Central Tax Appeal
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition on maintainability grounds, holding that an effective alternate remedy existed through statutory appeal to the Commissioner, Central Tax (Appeal) against the adjudicating authority's order. While acknowledging that the rule against entertaining Article 226 petitions when statutory appellate remedies are available is not rigid and exceptions exist per Supreme Court precedents, the court found no exceptional circumstances warranting intervention. The appellant received adequate opportunity to present submissions both before and after the show cause notice, with statements recorded and replies submitted during adjudication under statutory provisions. No violation of natural justice principles occurred. The appeal was dismissed with no grounds found to interfere with the Single Bench order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner gets partial relief as penalty under Section 74 GST requires fresh consideration after amnesty settlement
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the petitioner's challenge to an assessment order after the petitioner discharged tax liability and interest under an amnesty scheme settlement. The court balanced revenue and petitioner interests by remitting the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration of the penalty imposition under Section 74 of the GST enactment only. While the petitioner had settled the primary tax liability and interest components through the amnesty scheme, the court directed fresh consideration specifically regarding the penalty component, effectively providing partial relief to the petitioner while protecting revenue interests in the underlying tax assessment.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Section 129 penalty reduced for technical breach, export incentives allowed despite procedural violations
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the writ petition concerning GST penalty under Section 129. The petitioner had violated prescribed conditions but had voluntarily paid the penalty and successfully exported goods. The court determined that while the petitioner was liable for proceedings under Section 129, a lesser penalty was justified. The HC held that export incentives cannot be denied for technical and venial breaches, citing precedent that such minor violations should not result in denial of legitimate benefits. Despite availability of alternate appellate remedy under Section 107, the court exercised jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary litigation. The respondents were directed to appropriate Rs. 25,000 from the amount already paid by petitioner and allow adjustment of the balance against future tax liability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC quashes dismissal of ITC rectification application under Section 16 TNGST/CGST Act directing fresh consideration
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the writ petition challenging dismissal of rectification application concerning ITC entitlement under TNGST/CGST Act 2017. Court found petitioner established prima facie case for interference, noting amendments to Section 16 and potential limitation issues under Section 14 of Limitation Act 1963 favoring petitioner. HC observed respondent summarily rejected rectification application against assessment order without proper discussion or consideration of merits. Consequently, HC quashed the impugned order and directed respondent to pass fresh order after examining petitioner's submissions on merits. Petition disposed of with directions for reconsideration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Revenue authority's rejection of rectification application quashed due to factual error about petitioner's timely response
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed the impugned order rejecting petitioner's rectification application due to procedural error. The revenue authority incorrectly stated petitioner failed to reply to show cause notice, despite petitioner's timely response dated 22.01.2025 being duly acknowledged in Form GST DRC 06. Court found petitioner established grounds for judicial interference as the order contained factual inaccuracy regarding non-response. Matter remitted to respondent authority with directions to pass fresh order on merits within three months, ensuring petitioner's reply is considered and hearing opportunity provided. Petition allowed by way of remand, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST assessment orders upheld despite claimed clerical errors causing Rs 4.41 crore turnover suppression
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging GST assessment orders under Section 73(9) CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed clerical errors caused turnover suppression totaling Rs.4,41,27,934.50 across December 2018 and January 2019 returns, with mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 filings. The assessing authority quantified liability for suppressed turnover, wrongful input tax credit utilization, and delayed tax payment. The appellate authority found insufficient evidence per clarificatory circular dated 27.02.2022 and Section 16(2). The HC held the assessment orders contained no natural justice violations or jurisdictional errors, noting available statutory remedy before the Tribunal. The Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction where adequate alternative remedies existed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =