Goods and Services Tax

Section 74 demands fail where fraud findings are absent, and unnotified section 73 penalties cannot be substituted.
Case-Laws
GST
Finding that fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression was absent makes a demand sustained under section 74 internally inconsistent where that finding remains unchallenged. A demand cannot be defended on the hypothetical basis that proceedings under section 73 would have been within limitation when the show cause notice invoked section 74. Penalty under section 73(9) cannot be imposed where the notice proposed penalty only under section 74, because it exceeds the charges put to the taxpayer; a lower penalty amount does not cure the lack of notice. These jurisdictional defects require the demand and penalty to be set aside without considering remaining grounds.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Show-cause notice boundaries bar IGST demands on unnotified credit grounds; wrong-head GST payments require set-off.
Case-Laws
GST
Adjudication cannot sustain an alleged IGST short-payment demand on input-tax-credit eligibility grounds absent from the show-cause notice, particularly where the explanation for payment under different GST heads remains unaddressed. Payment of CGST and SGST instead of IGST because of a clerical error constitutes wrong-head payment rather than non-payment or short payment. Excess CGST and SGST credit should be set off against the IGST liability through the electronic credit ledger, with only any balance remaining after set-off recoverable in cash together with applicable interest.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Leasehold-rights assignment as a transfer arising from immovable property falls outside GST, defeating restoration of tax penalties.
Case-Laws
GST
Assignment of GIDC leasehold rights is treated as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and therefore falls outside the GST levy under the binding High Court ruling. On that basis, restoration or enhancement of penalties for alleged non-payment of GST did not arise, while the unchallenged confirmation of tax, interest and penalty under Section 73 remained undisturbed. Delayed invoicing and tax payment did not, by themselves, establish suppression with intent to evade tax. A bona fide and reasonable belief that the assignment was non-taxable, later supported by High Court rulings, independently precluded invocation of Section 74 and consequential penalties. The Department's appeal for restoration of penalties was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Unaccounted tobacco stock requires tax determination under statutory procedures, preventing direct confiscation and related tax, penalty, and fine.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 35(6) requires unaccounted tobacco stock found during a business-premises survey to be treated as supplied and subjected to tax determination under the prescribed statutory procedure. Direct confiscation proceedings cannot be used to impose tax, penalty and fine solely because excess or unaccounted stock is found; proceedings must instead be initiated under section 73 or 74. On that basis, the first appellate orders setting aside confiscation-based tax, penalty and fine were upheld, and the revenue appeals were dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings for the same goods are impermissible, while delayed manual invoices cannot cure transit-documentation breaches.
Case-Laws
GST
Parallel proceedings under the CGST/UPGST Acts for the same goods and cause of action are impermissible where transit-release proceedings have already resulted in recovery of tax and penalty; the first appellate reduction of duplicated liability was therefore sustained. Goods in transit must carry a tax invoice and a valid e-way bill generated before movement begins. Manual invoices furnished more than three months after interception, without upload on the GST portal, lacked evidentiary credibility and could not retrospectively validate the movement or cure missing mandatory documentation. The taxpayer's appeal failed, while the partial liability reduction for duplicated proceedings remained intact.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government road-restoration services for commercial pipeline work attract reverse-charge GST, while portal-issued proceedings remain valid without a physical DIN.
Case-Laws
GST
Road-restoration charges paid by a business to the PWD after permitted commercial road cutting constitute consideration for an identifiable restoration service, rather than compensation for damage, and attract GST under reverse charge where Government services are supplied to a business entity. Request-driven restoration facilitating a commercial pipeline layout is not treated as routine governmental road maintenance and does not qualify as non-supply or for the claimed exemption. Prior tax payment under forward charge requires support and does not displace reverse-charge liability. Electronically issued refund proceedings authenticated through the GST portal remain valid without a physical DIN where the notice discloses the basis of action and the recipient suffers no prejudice or denial of natural justice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory delay limits in GST registration appeals cannot be bypassed, but restored registrations can render departmental challenges infructuous.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory appellate authorities cannot condone delay beyond the GST Act's prescribed outer limit; High Court equitable jurisdiction cannot enlarge that statutory jurisdiction. Consequently, orders entertaining delayed appeals against GST registration cancellation were legally unsustainable. However, where the Department had already restored registrations pursuant to those orders, annulment without addressing the consequences of restoration offered no effective or workable relief, rendering departmental challenges academic and infructuous. Expiry of the period for applying to revoke cancellation did not extinguish the independent appellate remedy where the portal no longer accepted revocation applications. The objection based on non-use of the revocation procedure was therefore rejected.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Limitation for Revenue refund appeals begins when the order is issued, barring delayed departmental challenges beyond condonable time.
Case-Laws
GST
Limitation for Revenue appeals against refund sanction orders under Section 107(2) of the CGST Act runs from communication of the adjudicating order, construed for intra-departmental purposes as the date of its issuance. Online transmission of refund orders to the review module and their availability on the common portal constitutes service; internal administrative transmission cannot create an indefinite extension. The six-month appeal period may be extended by only one further month under Section 107(4). Post-audit dates and the separate recovery mechanism for erroneous refunds do not enlarge appellate limitation. Appeals filed beyond this period are time-barred and cannot be condoned.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST seizure retention limits require return of phones and debit cards when no valid extension order exists.
Notes
GST
Section 67 of the CGST Act limits retention of seized articles through necessity-based and time-bound safeguards. Documents, books and things may be retained only while necessary for examination, inquiry or proceedings, and material not relied upon for a notice must be returned within the statutory period. The High Court applied the six-month return rule to seized mobile phones and bank debit cards and required their return because no extension order existed. Continued investigation alone cannot replace an extension based on sufficient cause by the proper officer, for no more than a further six months. Written authorisation, seizure orders and inventories remain central to assessing whether retention is lawful.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Speaking appellate orders in GST appeals require findings on material grounds and reasons, preserving meaningful review and procedural fairness.
Notes
GST
Section 107(12) requires a GST appellate order to identify points for determination, decide each material ground, and give reasons showing independent application of mind. Formulaic confirmation of an original order does not satisfy this duty where jurisdiction, notice, evidence, quantification, taxability, suppression, interest, or penalty objections remain unresolved. Procedural fairness also requires a clear show-cause notice, access to relied-upon material, an effective hearing, and reasons confined to the notice's grounds. Where defects affect original adjudication as well as appeal, fresh original adjudication may be required; remand cannot expand the case beyond the notice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pre-movement e-way bill compliance makes post-interception documents insufficient to cure undocumented goods transport and potential detention.
Notes
GST
Rule 138 requires an e-way bill, including necessary transport particulars, before road movement of goods above the prescribed threshold, while Section 31 requires the invoice at or before removal. Rule 138A cumulatively requires the person in charge to carry the invoice, bill of supply or delivery challan and the e-way bill or permitted electronic equivalent. Goods moved without both records may be detained under Section 129, and later-created documents do not establish pre-movement compliance. Later documents may support an explanation on genuineness, proportionality or intent, but a credible contemporaneous evidentiary trail is required. Technical defects, short expiry or incomplete records with existing documentation require fact-specific assessment and should not be equated with wholly undocumented movement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Intent to evade tax required for detention penalty where unamended law linked e-way bill breaches to confiscation.
Case-Laws
GST
Under the unamended section 129, its link through section 129(6) to section 130 made intent to evade tax necessary before imposing a detention penalty. Transport of traceable motorcycles without an e-way bill did not establish that intent where the e-invoice contained engine and chassis particulars, physical verification found no discrepancy, returns disclosed the transaction, and no finding of evasion existed. The penalty was therefore unsustainable, although lawful procedural action for the documentation lapse remained open. Section 75(4) also required a meaningful hearing; an order issued fifty-seven minutes after the show-cause notice breached natural justice. The penalty orders were set aside and the deposit was refundable with applicable interest.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Custodial interrogation requires individualised necessity; documentary GST credit allegations alone did not preclude conditional anticipatory bail.
Case-Laws
GST
Custodial interrogation in alleged fraudulent GST input tax credit cases requires a specific, individualised showing of necessity. The seriousness or non-bailable character of an economic offence and statutory arrest powers alone do not justify arrest. Necessity must be assessed against the accused's role and cooperation, outstanding material, risks of absconding or evidence tampering, and whether less restrictive measures can meet investigative needs. Where documentary and electronic material has been seized and is already held by the Department, a bare assertion of necessity is insufficient. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to surrender, attendance, continued cooperation, and safeguards against absconding or tampering.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST detention penalties require hearings, cannot exceed show-cause notices, and do not arise merely from lawful batch transportation.
Case-Laws
GST
GST detention penalty proceedings require consideration of objections, a statutorily required personal hearing, and reasoned decision-making; an order issued on the notice date without these safeguards breaches natural justice. Section 75(7) bars confirmation of a penalty above the amount proposed in the show-cause notice, with any correction requiring timely disclosure. Failure to upload a Form GST MOV-09 order on the common portal does not alone invalidate proceedings. Under Rule 55(5), goods supplied under complete prior invoices may be transported in batches using a delivery challan; item-wise invoicing or absence of the original invoice does not itself establish tax evasion or justify detention penalty.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit requires proof that suppliers paid tax, while interest applies only to credit availed and utilised.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit requires the recipient to establish that the supplier has paid tax to the Government; payment to the supplier alone is insufficient. A GSTR-2A shortfall does not itself establish non-payment, but the recipient must provide prescribed supplier certification or other evidence of tax payment. For inter-State purchases, an e-way bill is primary evidence of goods movement, and its absence requires reliable contemporaneous transport, freight, receipt, or stock evidence. Interest applies only to credit wrongly availed and utilised and must be computed from the electronic credit ledger under Rule 88B(3). Statutory penalty for ineligible credit under Section 73 does not require fraud or intent to evade; re-availment remains possible if suppliers later pay tax.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory Limits on GST Appeal Delays Prevent Late Condonation, While Registration Restoration Makes Departmental Challenges Infructuous
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory limits on condonation of delay confine the First Appellate Authority's jurisdiction in GST registration-cancellation appeals. Extraordinary equitable relief available in constitutional jurisdiction cannot expand a statutory appellate authority's power or permit condonation beyond the prescribed outer limit; appeals entertained on that basis are without jurisdiction. However, where the Department has implemented the appellate orders by restoring cancelled GST registrations, it cannot seek their annulment without addressing the resulting legal and commercial consequences. Restoration renders departmental challenges ineffective, academic and infructuous, so no effective appellate relief remains available.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Going-concern transfers receive GST exemption only on proof; otherwise business assets and stock are taxable supplies of goods.
Case-Laws
GST
Transfer of an entire partnership business to a company without consideration may fall within GST supply, notwithstanding its occurrence outside the ordinary course of business. A transfer of a business undertaking as a going concern is classified as a supply of services rather than goods. The going-concern exemption applies only where the business, as a whole or independent part, satisfies that factual condition, requiring supporting evidence. If it does not qualify, the going-concern exception is unavailable and transferred stock and business assets are treated as taxable supplies of goods on cessation, at applicable rates.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CKD E-Rickshaw Classification Treats Complete Identifiable Kits as Finished Electric Vehicles, While Incomplete Supplies Remain Taxable Parts
Case-Laws
GST
Complete e-rickshaw CKD kits fall under Rule 2(a) as finished electrically operated vehicles only where every component necessary for one vehicle is supplied together as one identifiable kit and assembly requires no additional essential component. Purchase orders, invoices, packing lists and contemporaneous records must consistently identify the supply as an e-rickshaw in CKD/SKD condition, and the consignment must match those records. On satisfying all four requirements, classification is under HSN 87038040 as a three-wheeled electrically operated vehicle, attracting 5% GST; otherwise, the supply is classified and taxed as individual parts and components.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite wheat-milling services for public distribution qualify for GST exemption when the goods component stays within the threshold.
Case-Laws
GST
Composite supply of milling allocated wheat, fortifying the flour and packing it for Public Distribution System delivery has milling as its principal supply; fortification and packaging are ancillary. Total consideration includes cash and agreed non-cash consideration represented by retained gunny bags, bran and refractor, rather than their future disposal proceeds. Where goods used for fortification and packing remain within 25 per cent of total composite-supply value, the supply to the State Government qualifies for Serial No. 3A exemption because it relates to public distribution, a function under Article 243G. If the goods component exceeds that threshold, exemption is unavailable and the supply is taxable as food-related job work at 5 per cent.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST exemption for university educational services extends to long-duration statutory diploma and certificate programmes, but excludes short courses.
Case-Laws
GST
GST exemption for educational services applies to fees charged by a statutory university for diploma and certificate programmes of one year or more where the programmes form part of a structured curriculum leading to qualifications recognised by law. Statutory authority to institute diplomas and certificates and prescribe their academic content supports recognition of long-duration qualifications. Fees for short-duration diploma or certificate courses do not qualify for exemption because they do not meet the requirement of education forming part of a curriculum leading to a legally recognised qualification.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Doctrine of merger distinguishes refusal of special leave from appellate adjudication, preserving review and remanded proceedings where appropriate.
Notes
GST
Doctrine of merger under Article 136 depends on whether the Supreme Court granted leave and exercised appellate jurisdiction, not merely on disposal of a special leave petition. A non-speaking refusal of leave neither merges the challenged order nor confirms its reasoning, creates automatic res judicata, or independently bars review or writ proceedings. A speaking refusal likewise does not cause merger, although legal propositions expressly declared may bind under Article 141. Merger follows when leave is granted and the appeal is decided. In remanded GST proceedings, an earlier dismissal of special leave therefore does not prevent consideration of residual grounds or reliance on a later binding ruling, subject to applicable review, limitation, and procedural requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Manual show-cause replies in GST adjudication require consideration; orders issued before permitted evidence deadlines breach natural justice.
Case-Laws
GST
Natural justice in GST adjudication requires the Proper Officer to consider a taxpayer's representation under section 74(9) read with rule 142(4). Form GST DRC-06 need not be furnished exclusively through the electronic portal; a manually filed reply acknowledged at personal hearing cannot be disregarded solely because it was unavailable online. Issuing a demand order before expiry of time allowed for supporting documents, without addressing the reply or jurisdictional objection, denies a meaningful hearing. Such procedural defects support writ intervention despite an alternative statutory remedy. The demand order was set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication, with jurisdictional and merits objections left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit reversal on supplier credit notes was not mandatory; bona fide IGST adjustment did not attract fresh demand.
Case-Laws
GST
Recipient input tax credit did not require reversal solely because a supplier issued credit notes during the relevant period: neither the Act nor the Rules imposed that obligation, the statutory matching mechanism was inoperative, and Rule 37 concerned non-payment to suppliers. Accordingly, the premise for reversal failed. Excess IGST adjusted against CGST and SGST liabilities was procedurally irregular because the prescribed refund, re-credit or subsequent IGST-adjustment route was not used. However, as a bona fide first-year GST correction causing no revenue loss, it did not justify a fresh tax demand, interest or penalty; the departmental appeal was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Leasehold rights assignment transfers benefits of immovable property, keeping industrial plot transfers outside the GST supply net.
Case-Laws
GST
Assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot to a third party is treated as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property rather than a GST-taxable supply. A binding High Court ruling on that characterisation remains operative absent a stay or recall, notwithstanding an intended review. GST is therefore not leviable on such assignment, and the appellate order rejecting the departmental challenge stands sustained.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective price escalation triggers interest from original clearance, while bona fide transitional compliance does not attract tax penalty.
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective contractual price escalation fixes the true value of pre-GST clearances from their original clearance date. Section 142(2)(a) permits GST-compliant debit notes and post-transition reporting of differential tax, but does not create a new taxable event or defer accrual of the enhanced value. Differential tax on the increased value is therefore due from inception, making statutory interest mandatory despite the absence of formal provisional assessment. Penalty under section 122 is not warranted where the differential tax is voluntarily paid after price finalisation under a bona fide understanding of complex transitional provisions, without suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement or deliberate evasion.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =