Goods and Services Tax

Inverted duty refunds remain available where higher-taxed processing inputs create credit accumulation without any reduction in output GST rates.
Case-Laws
GST
Refund of accumulated input tax credit under an inverted duty structure remains available where processed fabrics retain the same GST rate and credit accumulates from higher-taxed chemicals, dyes and consumables used in job-work processing. Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST concerns credit accumulation caused by a GST-rate reduction on the same goods and does not bar such refund claims. Once substantive refund eligibility is determined, an appellate direction for arithmetical recomputation merely implements that determination and is not a prohibited remand, provided the original authority cannot reconsider the merits. Refund orders allowing consequential recalculation were sustained.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration revocation requires payment of return-related interest, late fees and penalties beyond outstanding tax.
Case-Laws
GST
Revocation of GST registration following cancellation for non-furnishing of returns requires filing outstanding returns and paying tax, interest, late fee and penalty. Verification limited to return filing and tax payment does not satisfy the proviso to Rule 23(1), which makes payment of these ancillary statutory liabilities a condition for revocation. The revocation order was modified to require recovery of unpaid interest and late fee and imposition of penalty under Rule 23.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST detention penalties require a specific statutory charge, disclosed evidence, and a meaningful hearing before penalties can stand.
Case-Laws
GST
GST detention penalties under section 129 require a pleaded and established contravention of the Act or Rules. A show-cause notice must identify the defective documents and the precise legal provision allegedly breached; a vague allegation of diversion or unloading at an undeclared destination is insufficient. Reliance on inculpatory statements requires their disclosure, and an offered personal hearing and cross-examination opportunity must be genuinely afforded before adjudication. Appellate review must address material natural-justice objections and identify the statutory contravention rather than rely on route or invoicing observations alone.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Local authority status under GST excludes statutory bodies outside enumerated categories, limiting Kerala Water Authority's works-contract concession.
Case-Laws
GST
GST local-authority status is confined to bodies expressly enumerated in the CGST/KGST definition; a statutory body is not included merely because its constituting State law deems it a local authority. Accordingly, works contract services supplied to Kerala Water Authority attract GST at 18% from 1 January 2022 rather than the concessional local-authority rate. On delayed differential GST, interest applies only to the portion discharged through the electronic cash ledger, not to the portion paid through the electronic credit ledger.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of excess IGST on exports cannot be denied for a clerical GSTR-3B reporting error.
Case-Laws
GST
Excess IGST paid twice on export supplies is refundable where export turnover and IGST liability were correctly reported in GSTR-1 but mistakenly classified under supplies other than zero-rated supplies in GSTR-3B. The mismatch prevented automated customs refund, leading to a second IGST payment through a corrected return; refund of that second payment did not extinguish the claim for the original excess payment. A clerical reporting error, supported by return reconciliation, does not constitute a substantive breach justifying denial. Retaining tax paid twice would lack authority of law, and refund cannot be denied on procedural grounds or the stated limitation objection.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-Way Bill consignment value excludes principal's goods on job-work returns, limiting detention where transport documents are present.
Case-Laws
GST
Consignment value for goods returned by a job worker comprises the job-work charges and applicable tax, not the value of the principal's goods. Under section 15 read with Explanation 2 to Rule 138, the return movement represents the job-work service; where its taxable value is below the prescribed threshold, an e-way bill is not mandatory. Detention and penalty action cannot rest on allegations contradicted by departmental records, including the presence of a tax-paid job-work invoice, delivery challan and e-way bill. A detention or appellate order must remain within the show-cause notice's factual allegations and give reasons for treating an e-way bill as invalid; reliance on unalleged grounds breaches natural justice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory detention-penalty timelines invalidate orders issued after the statutory seven-day period and undermine appellate affirmations.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 129(3) requires a detention-penalty order to be passed within seven days of service of notice. The seven-day period is mandatory, not directory; an order made after that period, including one issued 28 days after notice, breaches the statutory requirement. Such delay vitiates the detention-penalty proceedings, renders the original order void ab initio and a nullity, and leaves no valid basis for an appellate order affirming the penalty.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Inverted duty refunds cover distinct manufacturing inputs, while administrative clarifications on identical goods do not bar eligible claims.
Case-Laws
GST
Unutilised input tax credit accumulated from an inverted duty structure is refundable where manufacturing inputs are taxed at a higher rate than the outward supply and are distinct from the finished goods. For Agarbati manufacturing, perfumes, fragrances, chemicals, packaging materials and cardboard qualify as inputs whose higher tax rates may support refund eligibility. A CBIC clarification addressing situations where input and output supplies are the same goods does not restrict such claims. CBIC circulars bind central tax officers but not the Appellate Tribunal, although they may carry persuasive value.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advocate-Client Privilege Limits: GST investigations may examine counsel conduct while preserving unrelated client data confidentiality
Case-Laws
GST
GST search powers may extend to an advocate's cabin and electronic records within authorised premises where recorded reasons support statutory satisfaction; a pre-search hearing is not required. Advocate-client privilege protects client communications and confidentiality, but does not immunise an advocate's own conduct from investigation. Only cloned electronic data relevant to the investigation may be used, and unrelated client material must remain confidential. Sealed investigative records need not be disclosed while investigation continues because disclosure may expose its course and witness statements. Absence of a show cause notice at the investigation stage does not invalidate searches or summonses.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Same-subject-matter bar under GST requires identical contravention, so distinct credit allegations proceed through statutory appeals.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars parallel Central and State GST proceedings only where they seek to adjudicate the identical liability or contravention; shared assessee, tax period, input tax credit, or transactional background does not suffice. Allegations of fraudulent credit based on invoices without actual goods supply remain distinct unless that precise infraction was already adjudicated in State proceedings, so the Central proceedings were not barred. Writ review remains available despite a statutory appeal, but disputes over replies, relied-upon material, genuineness, goods receipt, fraud, suppression, and duplicate liability ordinarily require examination of the adjudication record in appeal absent exceptional circumstances. The writ petition was dismissed, with merits left open in appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory appellate remedy channels parallel GST proceedings and jurisdiction objections from writ review to factual appellate examination.
Case-Laws
GST
Availability of a statutory appeal against an Order-in-Original required the writ challenge to be pursued before the appellate authority. The objection that parallel Central and State GST proceedings concerned the same subject matter required factual examination of their scope, allegations, transactions, liabilities and evidentiary foundations. That inquiry, together with challenges to the demand and evidentiary findings, was left for appellate consideration. The writ petition was dismissed, while all contentions on jurisdiction, parallel proceedings and the demand remained open in appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative statutory remedy in GST adjudication generally bars writ review after an Order-in-Original, absent patent jurisdictional error.
Case-Laws
GST
Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal materially constrains Article 226 writ jurisdiction in GST adjudication. Once show-cause proceedings culminate in an Order-in-Original, disputes over overlapping State and Central input tax credit proceedings, factual and evidentiary material, and a multi-year notice should ordinarily be examined on appeal. A statutory pre-deposit obligation and the earlier filing of a writ during pending notice proceedings do not alone justify bypassing that remedy. Absent patent jurisdictional infirmity, appellate review remains available on all permissible grounds; the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST reimbursement for post-GST works contracts requires assessment under the notification's applicable provision, not the pre-GST clause.
Case-Laws
GST
GST reimbursement under the contractual tax-transition notification must be assessed under paragraph 4 for post-GST contracts and ongoing projects with estimates approved before 1 July 2017, applying GST rates. Paragraph 3(iv), confined to pre-GST contracts, cannot govern or defeat claims concerning contracts executed after that date. The reimbursement claim requires reconsideration under paragraph 4 following a personal hearing and a reasoned decision; coercive action remains restrained pending that determination.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation beyond show-cause notice was quashed, with fresh proceedings permitted after a hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancellation based on alleged fraudulent availment and passing of ineligible input tax credit cannot rest on grounds omitted from the show-cause notice. Repeated cancellation proceedings founded on allegations previously dropped by the same officer indicate non-application of mind. The cancellation notice and order were quashed without determination on the merits. Fresh proceedings may be initiated only through a new show-cause notice, with an opportunity of hearing and compliance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Special GST law bars general criminal prosecution where alleged tax defaults are already addressed under the CGST framework.
Case-Laws
GST
GST-related tax fraud allegations based on non-response and non-payment of Central or State GST must be addressed under the CGST Act where proceedings under that special enactment have already commenced. Sections 4 and 5 of the BNSS preserve the investigative and procedural framework prescribed by special statutes, preventing recourse to general criminal law for offences governed by such statutes. On this basis, BNS prosecution for the alleged GST defaults, including the charge-sheet and cognizance order against the taxpayer, was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative statutory remedy requires appellate exhaustion before direct writ challenges to GST assessment and rectification orders proceed.
Case-Laws
GST
GST assessment and rectification orders are subject to the statutory appellate mechanism, requiring exhaustion of that alternative remedy before a writ challenge is directly entertained. Where a GST demand and rejection of a rectification application were challenged without first filing an appeal, the writ petition was dismissed on that ground. Liberty was granted to file the statutory appeal within 30 days; if filed within that period, it must be entertained without a limitation objection and decided on merits. All substantive contentions remain open in the appellate proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Weekly-market fee collection rights leased by Panchayats remain public-authority functions and fall outside GST when linked to markets and fairs.
Case-Laws
GST
Leasing by a Town Panchayat of weekly-market entrance-fee collection rights to tender contractors is undertaken in its capacity as a public authority where it directly relates to the statutory function of markets and fairs. The phrase “in relation to” covers integral, incidental and ancillary arrangements needed to discharge that function. Contractors' collection under Panchayat-prescribed fees, receipts and conditions does not change the activity's statutory character or make it independently commercial. The leasing is neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services and therefore falls outside GST under the applicable notification.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bovine semen sorting is taxable as a scientific and technical service, not exempt animal husbandry support.
Case-Laws
GST
Bovine semen sorting, a laboratory process separating X-bearing and Y-bearing sperm cells, is a value-addition, testing and separation service performed on biological material. It neither constitutes nor directly supports livestock rearing, feeding, breeding management or animal husbandry, and is not an intermediate production process by way of job work relating to rearing of animals. In the absence of a specific scientific and technical service entry, it falls within SAC 998349 as other technical and scientific services, attracting GST at 18% without exemption.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit on land-survey services is unavailable for land surrendered to fulfil afforestation obligations.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit on land-survey charges incurred to identify alternate land for afforestation obligations is unavailable where the land is surrendered to the Forest Department, written off, and generates no independent economic benefit or taxable outward supply. The survey services are not used in the course or furtherance of business, so the Section 16(1) requirement is not met. Surveys connected with golf-course development concern immovable property developed on own account, while surveys for surrendered land relate to written-off land; the related credit is treated as blocked under Section 17(5), including Section 17(5)(h). Land transactions are outside the scope of supply under Schedule III.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Territorial GST jurisdiction limits detention and confiscation of inter-State consignments passing through a non-entitled transit State.
Notes
GST
State GST officers may conduct initial document verification of inter-State consignments but cannot detain, seize or confiscate goods merely passing through their State. Cross-empowerment under CGST and IGST laws requires both administrative allocation of the taxpayer to the State and assignment of the relevant proper-officer function; it is not unrestricted authority. Coercive action under Sections 129 and 130 additionally requires territorial and fiscal nexus, including the State's entitlement to IGST apportionment under Section 17. For consignments originating and destined outside the intercepting State, discrepancies should be referred to the consignor's or consignee's proper officers. Confiscation requires statutory grounds, material supporting intent to evade tax where applicable, and notice and hearing; transit checks cannot become valuation assessments.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Consolidated GST show cause notices may span financial years, but each demand component requires independent limitation and fraud scrutiny.
Notes
GST
Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act permit a common show cause notice covering multiple tax periods or financial years, as the expressions “for any period” and “such periods” do not impose a financial-year-specific bar. Financial-year references in the order-limitation provisions operate as separate limitation benchmarks for each demand component; consolidation cannot extend limitation or defeat period-wise objections. Section 74 requires disclosed material supporting fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, and cannot be invoked merely because tax remains unpaid. Rule 142 and FORM GST DRC-01 regulate electronic notice communication without restricting consolidation. Notice-specific allegations, quantified demands, hearing rights, reasoned orders and limits on confirmation remain applicable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST Delhi South officers bust firm in fraudulent availment of ITC involving over Rs. 25.22 crore; proprietor arrested
GST
Dated:- 18-9-2026

As part of its ongoing enforcement drive against fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims, the officers of Anti-Evasion Branch, Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Delhi South Commissionerate, has arrested a proprietor of a firm engaged in trading of iron and steel goods in a case involving fraudulent availment, utilisation and passing on of inadmissible ITC aggregating to over Rs. 25.22 crore through bogus invoices of approximately Rs. 140.14 crore.

Investigation revealed that the firm had availed inadmissible ITC on the basis of invoices issued by multiple firms, several of which wer

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Binding GST appellate orders require consequential refunds unless statutory withholding safeguards, including hearing, are satisfied.
Case-Laws
GST
Binding GST appellate orders remain operative unless modified, stayed or set aside through statutory remedies; departmental review, an intended challenge, or a later appeal does not suspend them. Refund authorities must process a consequential refund arising from annulment of the underlying demand and cannot revisit adjudicated input tax credit entitlement during refund processing. Withholding pending proceedings requires compliance with statutory safeguards, including the prescribed opinion based on malfeasance or fraud and an opportunity of hearing; a proposed challenge to the appellate order is insufficient. Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternative appeal where refund rejection disregards a binding order and the appellate remedy is ineffective. The refund rejection was quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings for one tax period were quashed while earlier exemption proceedings continue for fresh consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
Parallel GST proceedings for the same tax period cannot continue while earlier proceedings on alleged nil or exempt turnover remain pending. The later show-cause notices, adjudication orders and consequential recovery action were quashed as duplicative proceedings. The exemption claim remains for examination in the earlier proceedings upon production of documents and after a personal hearing. Those earlier proceedings must be reconsidered afresh without limitation impeding consideration because the now-quashed parallel proceedings had been initiated.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 88C mismatch proceedings require examination before a Section 73 adjudication can be lawfully sustained.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 73 adjudication requires consideration of the taxpayer's claim that its Rule 88C(2) explanation was accepted and that the mismatch proceedings concluded in its favour. Where that claim remains unexamined, the taxpayer must receive an opportunity to provide the relevant details and response. The adjudication was quashed and restored for fresh consideration of whether the Rule 88C proceedings had concluded in the taxpayer's favour and whether that conclusion affected the sustainability of the Section 73 proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =