Goods and Services Tax

Clarification regarding GST Tax Rates for Pepper, Raisins, Popcorn, Concrete Blocks, and Utility Vehicles Under Circular 38/2024
Circulars
GST – States
The Karnataka Commercial Taxes Dept. issued Circular No. GST-38/2024 clarifying multiple GST rate and classification issues based on the 55th GST Council meeting recommendations. Key clarifications include: (1) pepper of genus Piper attracts 5% GST, and agriculturists supplying dried pepper are GST-exempt; (2) agriculturists supplying raisins are GST-exempt; (3) ready-to-eat popcorn with salt/spices attracts 5-12% GST depending on packaging; (4) autoclaved aerated concrete blocks with >50% fly ash content fall under HS 6815; and (5) amended compensation cess for utility vehicles applies from 26.7.2023, with specific criteria for engine capacity, length, and ground clearance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC Allows Tax Credit Appeal Despite Missing Docs, Affirms Right to Challenge Procedural Decisions Under Section 16(5)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the Petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) involving belated GST return filing under Section 16(5) of CGST Act, 2017 constitutes an appealable order per Section 107. The court determined that factual aspects regarding non-filing of returns and potential procedural deficiencies should be evaluated by the Appellate Authority. Despite absence of documentary evidence, the Petitioner was granted permission to pursue appellate remedy, effectively allowing further judicial review of the tax credit claim through appropriate legal channels.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seized Goods Held Pending Investigations: Departments Must Notify Petitioner and Preserve Evidence Without Immediate Release
Case-Laws
GST
HC adjudicated a petition regarding illegal seizure of goods, finding that ongoing investigations by GST and Income Tax Departments preclude immediate release. The court directed: (i) Departments must provide notice to Petitioner of proceedings, (ii) Petitioner may seek goods' release through statutory provisions under CGST Act or Income Tax Act, and (iii) Departments shall not dispose of seized goods until investigations and adjudication are completed. The court explicitly noted no examination of case merits and disposed of the petition, enabling Petitioner to pursue administrative remedies for potential goods' release.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail Upheld in Massive Tax Refund Fraud Case Despite Allegations of Fraudulent Claims Exceeding 63 Crores
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the petition seeking recall of bail in a fraudulent IGST refund case. The respondent, arrested for allegedly claiming fraudulent tax refund exceeding 63 crores, was granted bail by the MM after careful consideration of facts. The court found no justification to interfere with the bail order, noting that previous prosecutions were primarily for non-appearance under IPC Sections 174, 175, and no formal complaint had been filed. The ASJ had already evaluated the respondent's prior involvement, and the Department failed to demonstrate any improper exercise of judicial discretion. Consequently, the petition challenging the bail order was rejected.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Suspends GST Recovery Demand, Grants Interim Relief and Allows Affidavit Filing by End of Year
Case-Laws
GST
HC granted interim relief in GST recovery matter, staying demand order until end of December 2025. The court recognized a prima facie case raised by petitioner and allowed filing of affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, with potential reply within subsequent three weeks. Jurisdictional challenge accepted, with liberty to mention after affidavit exchange period. Interim order aligns with previous judicial precedent in similar matter, providing temporary suspension of recovery proceedings pending final adjudication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Clarifies: Lessee's Industrial Land Rights Transfer Not Taxable Under GST, Exempting Lump Sum Property Assignments
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that assignment of leasehold rights for industrial land by a lessee to a third party for a lump sum consideration does not constitute a supply under GST provisions. The court determined that Section 7(1)(a) of the GST Act, read with Schedule II, Clause 5(b) and Schedule III, Clause 5, does not attract GST levy for such transactions involving transfer of immovable property rights. Following the precedent set in a prior Gujarat HC decision, the court recognized this as a significant legal issue affecting multiple pending petitions, effectively providing relief to industrial land lessees by exempting such assignments from GST taxation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fortis Trademark Auction Validated: FHL Secures Rights at Rs 200 Crores, Overcoming Legal Challenges and Valuation Objections
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the auction sale of the Fortis trade mark was valid and fair. The court confirmed the sale to FHL at Rs 200 Crores, rejecting objections to the valuation and auction process. Section 92 of CGST Act was deemed inapplicable to the court auctioneer. Upon sale confirmation, FHL shall become the trade mark owner with full rights, authorized to seek transfer in the trade mark registry. The court directed parties to comply with GST laws and compliance requirements. The sale proceedings will be listed before the Joint Registrar for final confirmation, subject to balance amount payment, with further directions possible if needed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory Remedy Under CGST Act Precludes Writ Petition, Emphasizing Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies First
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition for lack of maintainability, holding that an alternate statutory remedy exists under the CGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized the rule of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The detailed show cause notice served to the petitioner demonstrated procedural compliance, and no exceptional circumstances warranted judicial intervention. The court clarified that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ petition, but in this instance, the petition was deemed non-maintainable without expressing opinions on the substantive merits of the case.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Fraud Exposed: Systematic Evasion Through Fake Invoices Leads to Denial of Pre-Arrest Bail Under GST Regulations
Case-Laws
GST
HC denied pre-arrest bail in tax fraud case involving fraudulent ITC claims. Evidence prima facie indicated petitioner's proprietorship of enterprise generating fake GST invoices without actual goods/services supply. Despite prior interim protection and multiple notices, petitioner remained evasive and untraceable. Court determined petitioner was deliberately circumventing legal proceedings and misusing interim bail concessions. Consequently, the bail petition was summarily dismissed, rendering petitioner vulnerable to potential arrest and prosecution for systematic tax evasion through fabricated documentation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Thane businessman duped of Rs 4.5 cr in GST fraud
GST
Dated:- 12-5-2025
PTI
Thane, May 12 (PTI) A 60-year-old businessman from Maharashtra's Thane city was allegedly duped of Rs 4.5 crore by a man who carried out transactions through his company and evaded payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST), police said on Monday.
Based on a complaint, the police registered a case under sections 318(4) (cheating), 336 (forgery) and other relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and IT

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Challenging GST Assessment: Stone-Boulder Sales Price Comparison Invalidated Under Section 61 of Jharkhand GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that GST-ASMT-10 notices issued under Section 61 of Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 comparing petitioners' stone-boulder sales price with market price are ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The court determined that merely selling goods at a lower than market price does not automatically constitute a taxable discrepancy. The notices were deemed improper as they exceeded statutory powers, and the court quashed the notices, effectively ruling in favor of the petitioners by invalidating the tax department's assessment approach.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Gaps in E-Way Bill Compliance Don't Automatically Justify GST Penalties Without Proven Tax Evasion Intent
Case-Laws
GST
HC adjudicated a GST penalty case involving non-completion of e-way bill part-B. The court determined that mere technical non-compliance with Rule 138 regarding e-way bill documentation does not automatically justify penalty assessment under Section 129. Without substantive evidence demonstrating a deliberate tax evasion attempt, the administrative order imposing penalty was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the HC set aside the Assistant Commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling that procedural omissions alone cannot trigger punitive fiscal measures without proving intentional tax avoidance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer's ITC Credit Challenge Rejected as Administrative Mechanism Proves Transparent and Procedurally Sound Under Section 86A
Case-Laws
GST
The HC adjudicated a dispute concerning ITC blocking under CGST Act, 2017, s. 86A. The court examined the petitioner's challenge to the respondents' order regarding a blocked credit of Rs. 46,01,645/-. Upon careful review, the HC found that the petitioner's fundamental concerns were adequately addressed through clarifications provided by the respondents. The court's reasoning focused on the nature of the credit debit and the procedural transparency of the blocking mechanism. Consequently, the HC disposed of the petition, effectively resolving the dispute without mandating substantial further action, thereby affirming the administrative process's integrity in the electronic credit registration system.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Fairness Prevails: Denial of Personal Hearing Invalidates Administrative Order Under Section 75(4)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that principles of natural justice were violated when petitioner was denied personal hearing despite sufficient time between response filing and order issuance. The authority failed to provide opportunity under Section 75(4), which mandates hearing before adverse order. Given potential substantive arguments in petitioner's response, the procedural defect was material. The impugned order was consequently set aside, with petition allowed, emphasizing the critical importance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Lapses Invalidate Tax Appeal Order, Restore Petitioner's Right to Fair Hearing Under Section 107(6)
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 due to procedural irregularities in appeal processing. The Appellate Authority heard the matter on merits without prior intimation to the Petitioner regarding non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Section 107(6) of CGST Act. The court found a violation of natural justice principles and directed the Petitioner to deposit the requisite amount within five days, effectively remanding the case for proper procedural review.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer Directed to Resolve GST Refund Technical Challenges Through Direct GSTN Administrative Engagement and Specified Date Meeting
Case-Laws
GST
HC directed petitioner to approach GSTN Officer in New Delhi on specified date to resolve refund application technical issues involving PMT-03 form submission. The court found the dispute relatively minor and potentially resolvable through direct engagement with GST Network administrative channels. Petition was consequently disposed of, providing procedural guidance for addressing rejected refund claims through direct administrative intervention rather than prolonged judicial proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC Upholds Natural Justice, Remands Case and Grants Petitioner Extension to Respond to Show Cause Notice
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the writ petition, finding a violation of principles of natural justice. The court remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, granting the Petitioner time until 10th July 2025 to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The Adjudicating Authority must issue a personal hearing notice to the Petitioner after the reply is filed, effectively providing an opportunity to be heard that was previously denied.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Administrative Appeal Dismissed Without Notice Violates Natural Justice, Fundamental Right to Hearing Under Section 107(12)
Case-Laws
GST
HC found a violation of natural justice principles in an administrative appeal. The authority dismissed the appeal ex parte on 20.01.2022 without proper notice to the petitioner, despite the last fixed date being 18.01.2022. The order contravened procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate opportunity to be heard and lacking substantive reasoning as mandated under Section 107(12) of CGST Act. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, ensuring procedural compliance and fundamental principles of administrative adjudication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative Remedy Available: Finance Act Section 85 Provides Legal Pathway for Challenging Final Order Under Statutory Mechanism
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition on grounds of availability of alternative remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court noted a final order had been passed under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2) of CGST Act, 2017. Recognizing the potential for rendering the petitioner remediless, the court disposed of the petition while emphasizing the existence of an alternative statutory mechanism for challenging the underlying order through prescribed legal channels.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner Must First Exhaust Statutory GST Appeal Remedy Under Section 107 Before Seeking Judicial Intervention
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the petition challenging a GST order, holding that the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting direct judicial review, emphasizing the need to follow prescribed administrative appellate mechanisms. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal within four weeks, with the appellate authority considering the time spent in HC as valid for potential delay condonation. The petition was disposed of without examining the substantive merits of the original tax dispute.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Recovery Action Invalidated: Section 62(2) Nullifies Assessment Order After Timely GSTR 3B Filing and Tax Payment
Case-Laws
GST
HC invalidated the tax recovery action against the petitioner, finding the assessment order withdrawn under Section 62(2) as a matter of legal fiction. The court determined that since the original tax assessment order lost legal efficacy after the petitioner timely filed GSTR 3B and paid taxes within statutory period, the subsequent recovery proceedings were procedurally improper. The respondent tax authority acted ultra vires by initiating recovery without issuing prior notice, particularly after approximately five years from the original demand date. The HC directed respondent authorities to file their response within two weeks and scheduled further hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Contractors Win GST Reimbursement Rights for Pre-2017 Infrastructure Projects, Securing Fair Compensation for Indirect Transactions
Case-Laws
GST
HC allows contractor's petition, mandating reimbursement of GST impact for infrastructure projects executed before GST implementation. The court held that contractors awarded contracts prior to 01.07.2017 are entitled to GST reimbursement on indirect transactions. The respondent must release withheld amount of Rs. 19,86,44,336/- with statutory interest within six weeks and pay Rs. 50,000/- costs. The decision affirms contractual entitlements and protects contractors from undue financial burden arising from mid-contract GST regime changes.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Intermediary Status Clarified: IGST Refund Claim Upheld Under Section 13(8) and Existing Precedents
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that the petitioner is not an “intermediary” under IGST Act, Section 13(8) and Section 2(13). Based on an identical CESTAT order that had attained finality and CBIC Circular clarifying service tax and GST intermediary provisions, the court found no basis to differentiate the petitioner's case. The court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim with applicable interest within 4 weeks, effectively allowing the petitioner's claim for IGST refund.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Notice Challenge Rejected: Statutory Appeal Route Preferred Over Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction Under Section 74/73
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging tax SCN and final order under WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court held that the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy through appeal under Section 74/73, and cannot bypass such efficacious remedy by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Despite relying on a Madras HC precedent, the petition was rejected due to availability of alternative remedy and lack of exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention. The court emphasized that all contested issues can be adequately addressed through the prescribed appellate mechanism, rendering the writ petition non-maintainable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Credit Dispute Overturned: Procedural Errors Invalidate Order, Mandate Fair Reconsideration of Petitioner's Claims
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition, reversing the Input Tax Credit (ITC) order due to procedural irregularities. The court found respondent failed to properly consider petitioner's submissions and credit note, violating principles of natural justice. Relying on precedent from a similar tax dispute, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the tax authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, ensuring fair evaluation of all submitted documents and contentions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =