Goods and Services Tax

Writ jurisdiction and alternate remedy rule: challenge to a CGST section 74 order was rejected in favour of statutory appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined against a show cause notice and consequential order under section 74 of the CGST Act because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under section 107 read with Rule 109A. The Court held that challenges requiring examination of the corrigendum, the underlying material, and the nature of the correction involved factual appreciation and therefore did not fall within the limited certiorari jurisdiction. Mere disagreement with the adjudicating authority's conclusions was insufficient to bypass the appellate remedy. The Court also noted that recognised exceptional grounds such as breach of fundamental rights, natural justice violations, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires were not made out on the material before it, and it expressed no opinion on the merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Regular bail in CGST input tax credit fraud was granted where custodial interrogation was unnecessary and evidence was documentary.
Case-Laws
GST
Regular bail was granted in an economic offence involving alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit under the CGST Act because the prosecution's case rested mainly on documentary material already in its possession. The investigation was found to be substantially complete, and no further custodial interrogation was shown to be necessary. The court also noted that the alleged offence carried a maximum punishment of five years, was compoundable, and that no specific risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses was demonstrated, especially where the evidence was largely documentary. Bail was therefore allowed on bond and surety terms.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory hearing requirement under GST law leads to setting aside adverse assessment and fresh decision after personal hearing
Case-Laws
GST
Under Section 75(4), an adverse determination could not be made without affording the taxpayer a hearing, and the obligation remained even if the response to the show cause notice was filed late. The High Court found that no personal hearing had been given and the alleged communication relied on by the State was not available on the portal, so the assessment order under Section 73(9) suffered from breach of the mandatory hearing requirement. The order was set aside, and the officer was directed to restore limited portal access, accept the response, and decide the matter afresh after granting hearing in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit mismatch on imported goods requires reconsideration where the authority ignores the taxpayer's explanation.
Case-Laws
GST
Non-application of mind was found where the authority referred to the taxpayer's reply but did not meaningfully consider the specific explanation for reversal of part of the input tax credit on imported goods. The mismatch between the address in the bills of entry and the additional place of business on the portal also required reconsideration in light of the pleaded explanation that the business premises had shifted and the corresponding importer-exporter record amendment was made later. On that limited issue, the adjudication order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, with consequential interest and penalty also falling with that limited relief and all contentions kept open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Temporary identification number and separate GST notices required to preserve independent appellate remedies for company and Managing Director.
Case-Laws
GST
A temporary identification number may be granted to an unregistered Managing Director under Rule 16A, enabling independent use of appellate remedies where a composite GST summary order and a single Form GST DRC-07 fasten liability on both the company and the Managing Director. Fresh separate Form GST DRC-07 notices must be issued for each, so that each recipient can pursue an appeal on facts and law independently. Limitation for filing appeal runs only from issuance of the fresh DRC-07. The merits of the underlying tax liability were not examined.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Right to inspection of relied upon documents upheld for effective reply to a show cause notice.
Case-Laws
GST
Where a show cause notice under Section 74(1) is founded on documents from an earlier search and seizure, the noticee must be given effective access to the relied upon material to answer it. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to inspection and/or extracts of all relied upon records, and that specific accounting data such as excel or tally files had to be supplied where relied upon and specifically requested. It limited the ruling to this procedural access issue, directed disclosure within the time fixed, allowed time to reply and a personal hearing, extended the adjudication period, and left all other challenges open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pending rectification must be decided before dismissing a statutory appeal; appellate order set aside and fresh hearing directed.
Case-Laws
GST
A pending rectification application must be decided before a statutory appeal is dismissed, where the rectification could affect the adjudication order under challenge. The High Court held that the appellate authority should not have rejected the appeal while rectification proceedings were still pending, and the appellate order was therefore unsustainable. It set aside the dismissal of the appeal and directed that the rectification application be decided first, after affording personal hearing and by a reasoned order, within the time fixed by the Court.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST recovery attachment vacated, with payment to supplier restrained pending resolution of collateral disputes.
Case-Laws
GST
Bank account attachment under a GST recovery notice was vacated where the petitioner had received the supplies and had already reversed the input tax credit during departmental proceedings that were later dropped. The Court balanced the petitioner's position against the supplier's possible entitlement to payment, noting that that entitlement had to be worked out separately in collateral proceedings. The attachment was therefore released, but the petitioner was restrained from making any direct or indirect payment to the supplier unless appropriate orders were obtained in those separate proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Voluntary ITC reversal and Section 74(5) closure failed where the declaration was made during inspection in officers' presence.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that reversal of input tax credit during an ongoing inspection, in the presence of officers, supported the finding that the declaration under Section 74(5) was not voluntary; the subsequent payment of interest and penalty and request for closure were treated as consequential. It noted that a bare allegation of coercion needs supporting circumstances, but on these facts the inspection context made the involuntariness credible, so that finding was sustained. As the closure under Sections 74(5) and 74(6) was invalid, the proceedings were restored to the pre-closure stage, with liberty to proceed under Sections 73 or 74 and exclusion of the intervening period from limitation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory personal hearing under GST law cannot be waived by form selection; adverse order quashed for breach of natural justice.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 75(4) of the GST Act was treated as a mandatory requirement for granting personal hearing before passing an adverse order, and the taxpayer's selection of “No” in the reply form did not override that statutory obligation. The adverse order was therefore unsustainable for breach of audi alteram partem and natural justice. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after affording a hearing within the time fixed by the Court.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Documentary GST prosecution supports regular bail where further custodial interrogation is not required
Case-Laws
GST
Regular bail was granted in a GST prosecution concerning alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit through bogus invoices under Sections 132(1)(c) and (f), because the allegations were substantially supported by documentary material. The Court noted that relevant documents had been seized, statements had been recorded, and the investigation was largely complete, while the applicant had remained in custody since 16/01/2026. As no further custodial interrogation appeared necessary, bail was allowed on personal bond and surety, and the order was directed to continue until disposal of the case.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay and laches defeat writ challenge to assessment order where statutory notices were ignored and supplier certificates were raised belatedly.
Case-Laws
GST
Delay and laches barred interference under Article 226 where the petitioner failed to respond properly to the discrepancy notice and show cause notice, did not furnish invoice details before the statutory authority, and raised supplier certificates only belatedly despite their earlier availability. The High Court found no justifiable basis to reopen an assessment that had already attained finality, particularly in view of the prolonged delay and the petitioner's negligence in the statutory proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed and the assessment order left undisturbed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Common portal service of GST orders upheld; delayed writ challenge refused, with statutory appeal left open subject to limitation.
Case-Laws
GST
Service of GST orders through the common portal is legally valid under Sections 169 and 146 of the CGST Act, and a belated writ challenge based on alleged non-communication cannot be entertained nearly three years later. The High Court upheld dismissal of the writ petition on delay and laches, noting that the appellant had an available statutory appellate remedy. It further held that any such remedy must be pursued in accordance with the statutory scheme, including limitation, and no separate protective order was warranted. The appellant was left free to seek the statutory remedy subject to law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST detention and coerced statement claims rejected as disputed facts; prima facie material sustained continued custody.
Case-Laws
GST
At the investigation stage of GST detention proceedings, the Court found prima facie material supporting continued custody of the goods and conveyance, including interception of the vehicle en route to a destination different from the declared one and other investigative circumstances. The affixture of the detention order on the vehicle and office notice board, after non-appearance of the persons summoned, was not treated as illegal, and extension of time for inspection was considered a permissible statutory step. The petitioner's allegation that his statement was coerced was held to raise disputed factual questions unsuitable for Article 226 scrutiny. The writ petition was dismissed, subject to statutory remedies and a direction to furnish the detention order if the petitioner appears.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transit penalty for goods detained without fraud was held unsustainable where invoice, e-way bill and consignee note supported movement.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that penalty for detention of goods in transit was unsustainable where the record showed movement under a tax invoice, e-way bill and consignee note, and the petitioner was treated as the consignee-owner. In the absence of any allegation or material of fraud in the accompanying documents, the authorities could not ignore the transport documents or proceed against the petitioner as another person. Subsequent cancellation of registration, having occurred after the invoice and loading of goods, did not justify the penalty. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 86A cannot create a negative Electronic Credit Ledger balance; excess blocking is unlawful, though preventive action needs no prior notice.
Case-Laws
GST
Rule 86A permits only a temporary restriction on debit of credit actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger; it does not authorise the Commissioner or an authorised officer to create a negative balance by blocking more credit than stands to the taxpayer's account. The High Court also reiterated that prior show cause notice is not required before invoking Rule 86A, because the measure is preventive and intended for emergent situations, but that does not enlarge the statutory power. The impugned blocking beyond the available credit was unsustainable and was set aside, while the authorities were left free to pursue recovery through the statutory mechanisms available in law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration restoration permitted after non-filing, where taxpayer clears pending returns and statutory dues
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns was treated as amenable to restoration where the taxpayer was ready to file all pending returns and pay tax dues with applicable interest, penalty and late fee. Following its earlier decision on similar facts, the HC directed the proper authority to consider restoration under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 rather than treating cancellation as final. The taxpayer was allowed sixty days to apply for restoration, and the authority was required to act expeditiously on compliance with the statutory requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings barred on same subject matter, but summons alone do not start adjudicatory action.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, but summons and other investigative steps do not by themselves amount to initiation of such proceedings. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Armour Security, the HC noted possible overlap between Central and State GST action, but declined to decide the merits of that overlap on the material before it. It directed the assessee to comply with the summons and raise the objection before the concerned authority, while requiring the State and Central authorities to communicate and coordinate so that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter. The merits and validity of the summons and notice were left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Speedy trial and documentary evidence justified regular bail in a GST prosecution with prolonged custody.
Case-Laws
GST
Regular bail was granted in a GST prosecution because continued custody was found inconsistent with Article 21 in the circumstances of the case. The High Court noted that the offence was triable by a Magistrate, carried a maximum sentence of five years, cognizance had already been taken, the prosecution rested mainly on documentary evidence, no other case was attributed to the accused, and ten witnesses remained, indicating that trial would take time. On that basis, further incarceration was held to offend the right to a speedy trial. Bail was made subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court or Duty Magistrate, with liberty to seek cancellation for breach.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fraud-based GST demand fails where input tax credit was reversed before notice and no utilisation or intent to evade was shown.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 74 of the GST Act cannot be invoked without material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; where the taxpayer reversed the disputed input tax credit before notice and the Revenue showed no conscious involvement in any fraudulent arrangement, the proceedings were held unsustainable. Interest under Section 50 was also refused because wrongly availed credit had been reversed before the show cause notice and the Electronic Credit Ledger retained surplus balance, so utilisation was not established. A further demand and penalty on the same reversal was treated as double taxation and beyond jurisdiction, and the impugned orders were quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional bank attachment requires tangible material and strict safeguards; High Court quashes arbitrary attachment and imposes personal costs.
Case-Laws
GST
Provisional attachment of a bank account under section 83 is a drastic power that can be exercised only on a prior, valid formation of opinion based on tangible material and after compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. The pre-attachment communication and attachment order were vague, issued without a show cause notice, and disclosed no proper material or reasoning; the attachment therefore breached the petitioner's civil rights and was unlawful. The High Court quashed the attachment orders but permitted the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law if tangible material exists. Finding a gross abuse of power and high-handed conduct causing serious civil consequences, the Court also imposed personal costs on the concerned officer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Vague GST cancellation notices and non-speaking orders violate natural justice; registration restored, fresh proceedings permitted.
Case-Laws
GST
Vague show-cause notices proposing GST registration cancellation, and orders rejecting revocation, were held arbitrary because they did not deal with the petitioner's explanation for temporary discontinuance of business and showed no application of mind. The Court reiterated that a notice seeking cancellation must contain adequate reasons to enable an effective reply, and that a mechanical order passed without discussing the assessee's case violates natural justice. The impugned notices and consequential orders were quashed, registration was restored, and the department was left free to initiate fresh proceedings on a properly reasoned notice after granting a hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC mismatch reconciliation required before adverse GST adjudication; demand set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit mismatch between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A had to be reconciled in accordance with Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST before adverse adjudication; where that prescribed procedure was not followed, the adjudication order and consequential demand were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show cause notice. The assessee was left free to raise all other contentions in the remanded proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Vague show cause notice and denial of effective hearing led to quashing of the assessment order and remand
Case-Laws
GST
An assessment order rejecting input tax credit under Section 74 was quashed because the petitioner was not afforded a proper personal hearing and the show cause notice was found to be vague. The Court accepted that the authorised representative had been sent to another officer for document verification rather than being effectively heard, and held that one more meaningful opportunity of hearing was required. It also held that the notice did not sufficiently disclose the specific allegations later relied on in the order, impairing the petitioner's ability to respond. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and permitting additional documents.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTAT Lucknow Bench begins operations, with jurisdiction and filing of GST appeals now routed through the new bench.
Circulars
GST – States
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench has commenced operations at its temporary address in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and will exercise jurisdiction over the Uttar Pradesh districts notified by the Department of Revenue. Appeals under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the State GST Act arising from that jurisdiction must now be filed before the Lucknow Bench. Institution of appeals and related proceedings must follow Chapter III of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025, along with the e-filing advisory, Presidential Orders, and other applicable statutes and directions made available on the GSTAT portal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =