Goods and Services Tax

GST on manpower supply includes lockdown wage reimbursements; no exemption from labour memo under CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's supply of manpower to a Govt. space research centre constitutes “manpower recruitment and supply services” and is a taxable supply under the CGST Act. Interim payments made by the recipient to outsourced workers during the COVID-19 lockdown, pursuant to contractual arrangements, form part of the consideration for such taxable services. The subsequent disbursement of the entire amount to workers does not alter the taxability or reduce the taxable value. The office memorandum treating contractual/outsourced staff as “on duty” during lockdown and directing continued payment of wages is a labour-protection measure and does not create any GST exemption. As no specific exemption applies, GST is payable on the full consideration, and the applicant must regularise the corresponding tax liability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SCN under GST Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 quashed due to internal lapse, matter remanded for hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC, dealing with a challenge to extension of limitation for issuance of SCN and vires of N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax and N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax, noted that the issue of validity of the notifications is pending before SC in a related batch. In the present matter, the Petitioner, a stock broker, asserted that the SCN dated 30.05.2024 never came to its knowledge due to an internal lapse by its accountant, resulting in no reply being filed. HC held that, in these circumstances, neither the SCN nor the consequent demand can be sustained. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after personal hearing on a fixed date. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC allowed only on June 2022 rent under S.16(4); invoices breaching R.47 invalid, S.97(2) limits scope
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant is entitled to avail ITC only on GST paid on rent for June 2022, subject to compliance with the time limit prescribed under S.16(4) CGST Act. It was determined that invoices pertaining to periods when the landlord was unregistered do not constitute valid tax invoices for ITC, as the supplier lacked registration and such invoices were also issued beyond the time limit stipulated in R.47 CGST Rules. Consequently, ITC on those invoices is inadmissible. On the query whether availment of such ITC would invite audit or departmental scrutiny, AAR declined to answer, holding it outside the scope of S.97(2) CGST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seizure of Transporter's Vehicle for E-Way Bill Mismatch Quashed; No Evidence of Tax Evasion Under Section 129 GST
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined the seizure of a vehicle and goods due to a mismatch between the consignment and the e-way bill, where the petitioner acted solely as a transporter. HC noted that authorities had already held the goods to belong to the consignor and released them, and no finding existed that the petitioner was engaged in purchase or sale of goods or had any intent to evade tax. The discrepancy was explained as a human error by labourers during loading. In absence of adverse material against the transporter, HC held that seizure of the vehicle and initiation of proceedings were unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and the petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty for e-way bill lapse restricted to s.129(1)(a) U.P. GST; wrong s.129(1)(b) order quashed and recomputation directed
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that, in a case of goods transported without an accompanying e-way bill, only penalty under s.129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was legally permissible. The Adjudicating Authority had erroneously imposed penalty under s.129(1)(b). Relying on its earlier precedent in a similar matter, HC found no other factual dispute warranting further pleadings and, with consent of parties, decided the writ at admission stage. The impugned order dated 25.10.2025 was quashed and set aside. Revenue authorities were directed to recompute and impose penalty strictly in accordance with s.129(1)(a) within three weeks. The writ petition filed by M/s X against State authorities was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Search and seizure SCNs upheld; Section 61 objections and procedural defects to be raised before adjudicating authority
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld the validity of the impugned SCNs issued pursuant to search and seizure conducted at the premises of the petitioner, despite allegations of irregular seizure without a proper panchanama and inadequate documentation. The HC held that objections regarding non-compliance with statutory provisions, including Section 61, procedural infirmities in search and seizure, and alleged denial of adequate opportunity, are matters to be urged before the adjudicating authority in the pending proceedings. Reiterating its earlier order permitting withdrawal of a prior writ to pursue assessment remedies, the HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to raise all factual and legal grounds in its reply to the SCNs.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 54 CGST and Rule 89(1A) timelines directory; Centre cannot retain IGST wrongly paid under bona fide mistake
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that Section 54 CGST Act and Rule 89(1A) CGST Rules are directory, not mandatory, for refund of tax wrongly paid under a bona fide mistake regarding the nature of supply. Since payment of IGST to Central authorities and subsequent correct payment to State authorities were undisputed, retention of IGST by the Centre would offend Article 265 and principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. HC set aside the impugned orders of respondent no. 3 rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, and expressly held that the refund application was within limitation. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 3 to reconsider and pass a reasoned order on the merits of the refund claim in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail granted under Section 480(6) BNSS for accused in Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) 2017 Act case after prolonged custody delay
Case-Laws
GST
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S., allowed the bail application of A v. State in an economic offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) of the 2017 Act, a non-bailable offence triable by Magistrate. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.06.2024 and cognizance was taken on 01.02.2025, with only partial examination of three out of ten witnesses and no delay attributable to the accused. Noting the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and the procedural safeguard against undue trial delay, as well as the absence of recorded reasons by the trial court justifying continued incarceration, HC invoked Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail, subject to usual conditions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Exporters entitled to ITC refund under s.54(3) GST; Rule 89(4A) and Circular 172 held inapplicable
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the petitioners, being 100% EOUs making zero-rated supplies under LUT, are exporters and not “deemed exporters” under s.2(39) r/w s.147 of the GST Act. Since their suppliers treated supplies as regular B2B and did not follow deemed export procedure or claim deemed export benefits, para 2.2 of Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST and Rule 89(4A) are inapplicable. The petitioners correctly claimed refund of unutilised ITC under s.54(3) r/w Rule 89(1)/89(4). The authorities' reliance on the Circular with retrospective effect and exercise of suo motu review under s.107(2) to deny or revisit sanctioned refunds was held unsustainable. The HC allowed the petitions, restoring the refund claims of unutilised ITC.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund claim under S.54 CGST upheld; deficiency memos quashed, DRC-03 search deposits not treated as voluntary payments
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the deficiency memos rejecting the petitioner's refund applications under S.54 CGST Act were legally untenable. The HC found the refund applications complete and accompanied by requisite documents, and ruled that a deficiency memo can be issued only where an application is incomplete or deficient. It further held that amounts deposited in DRC-03 during a search, purportedly under S.74(5), were not voluntary payments and therefore could validly be claimed as refund under S.54. The HC quashed the impugned deficiency memos dated 20.05.2025 and 21.05.2025, and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims for the DRC-03 payments and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal to be heard if taxpayer deposits admitted dues plus 25 percent of disputed GST within 30 days
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the appeal had been rejected on limitation, though partial tax liability was admitted. Total tax demand was Rs. 9,99,558/-, of which the petitioner had accepted Rs. 3,65,918/- but deposited only Rs. 99,956/-. HC directed the petitioner to deposit the balance admitted tax of Rs. 2,65,962/- within 30 days, and additionally to deposit Rs. 1,58,410/-, being 25% of the disputed tax of Rs. 6,33,640/-, from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within the same period. On such compliance, the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority was mandated to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits, without rejecting it on the ground of limitation. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ allowed; assessment and rectification orders quashed, matter remanded for de novo consideration subject to partial tax deposit
Case-Laws
GST
HC entertained the writ petition challenging rejection of a rectification application and the consequential assessment order, noting that the petitioner had failed to respond to the pre-assessment notice. Applying its consistent view in analogous matters, HC quashed the impugned assessment and rectification rejection orders and remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority for de novo consideration. The remand was made conditional upon the petitioner-assessee depositing a quantified portion of the disputed tax, between 25% and 100%, as determined with reference to the delay in approaching HC. The Assessing Authority was directed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law. With these directions and conditions, the writ petition was disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rectification under Section 161 CGST set aside for breach of natural justice, matter remanded with 50% deposit condition
Case-Laws
GST
HC considered the challenge to a rectification order adversely affecting the taxpayer without adequate adherence to principles of natural justice. HC set aside the impugned rectification and assessment orders and remitted the matter to the respondent authority for fresh adjudication. This remand is conditional upon the Petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, as confirmed in the rectification order dated 11.09.2024, in cash from the Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receipt of the order. The Petitioner shall, within the same period, file a detailed reply with supporting documents to the GST DRC-01 show cause notice dated 02.05.2024, treating the assessment order dated 08.07.2024 as an addendum. Petition disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Supervisory power under Article 227 limits tribunal from halting GST general transfers or forcing online policy deadline
Case-Laws
GST
HC, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227, held that the Tribunal exceeded its remit by interdicting general transfers in the GST Department and effectively compelling implementation of the Government's online general transfer policy within a fixed time-frame. HC observed that while the policy objective is laudable, neither the Tribunal nor the Court can mandate its implementation within a particular deadline or paralyse routine administrative transfers pending such implementation. The Revenue's undertaking that the online transfer guidelines and supporting software will be fully implemented within six months was recorded. In view of this undertaking, the impugned interdiction by the Tribunal was set aside to the extent it obstructed general transfers, and the Department was permitted to proceed with transfers in accordance with existing norms. The original petition was accordingly disposed of without further directions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory for Furnishing of Bank Account Details as per Rule 10A
GST
Dated:- 20-11-2025

Dear Taxpayers,
As per Rule 10A, taxpayers (except those registered under TCS, TDS, or suo-moto registrations) must furnish their bank account details within 30 days of grant of registration or before filing details of outward supplies in GSTR-1 or IFF, whichever is earlier.
The changes with respect to Rule 10A will be implemented on the GST Portal soon. Therefore, the taxpayers who have not yet

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Suspension of State Tax Officer quashed; no prima facie misconduct under U.P. Govt Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined the legality of the suspension of the petitioner, a State Tax Officer, under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Considering that the petitioner had submitted an adverse investigation report against the concerned firm on 03-12-2024, which formed the basis of the subsequent show cause notice dated 05-12-2024, and that GST credit was claimed thereafter on 13-01-2025, HC held that no prima facie misconduct warranting suspension was made out. Consequently, the suspension order dated 23-08-2025 issued by the Commissioner, State Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow was quashed. However, HC clarified that the authorities are at liberty to initiate and conclude a departmental inquiry within four months. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill expiry alone not proof of tax evasion; GST detention, seizure under Section 129 held invalid
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and quashed the detention and seizure orders passed under GST law. The HC held that mere expiry of the e-way bill, in the facts of the case, did not establish any intention to evade tax, particularly when all other requisite documents, including tax invoice mentioning specific engine and body numbers of the two-wheelers, accompanied the goods. The Revenue failed to produce any material indicating prior movement of vehicles with identical identification numbers or any contrary GPS data, while the GPS report supported delivery at the declared destination. As the goods were new, unregistered two-wheelers that could not be lawfully plied on road and there was no evidence of misuse or diversion, the proceedings under detention and seizure were held unsustainable. All consequential demands and penalties were set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional bank account attachment under Sections 83(1), 83(2) CGST, Rule 159 quashed for exceeding one-year limit
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the provisional attachment of two of the petitioner's bank accounts under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act had exceeded the statutory one-year limit prescribed in Section 83(2), read with Rule 159 of the CGST Rules. As the attachments, effected via Form GST DRC-22 dated 11.11.2024, had “outlived” the permissible duration, they could not legally subsist thereafter. Noting that counsel for the revenue could not confirm lifting of the attachments post-expiry, the HC declared that such provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year and accordingly set aside the attachments of the two accounts. The writ petition was allowed in part.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Circular on inverted duty refunds under Section 54(3) held ultra vires for retrospective application of 2022 restrictions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC adjudicated writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Clause 2 of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 issued under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure. Concurring with the view of another HC, it held that the Circular is ultra vires to the extent it retrospectively applies restrictions introduced by the Notification dated 13.07.2022 to all refund applications filed on or after 18.07.2022. The HC found no distinguishing circumstance or justification advanced by the revenue. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, and the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 04.06.2024 were quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advertisement tax bye-laws struck down as ultra vires after 101st Amendment and U.P. GST Act, 2017; demands quashed
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that, pursuant to the 101st Constitutional Amendment and enforcement of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, the State Legislature lacks legislative competence to levy advertisement tax under the impugned municipal bye-laws. Relying on a co-ordinate Bench decision, which had already declared similar advertisement tax provisions ultra vires Article 265 of the Constitution, the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and the U.P. GST Act, 2017, the HC reaffirmed that the concerned bye-laws are without statutory authority. Consequently, the impugned demand notice and consequential recovery certificate seeking advertisement tax for the period 13.02.2018 to 12.02.2019 were quashed. The writ petition filed by the assessee was allowed in entirety.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST GSTR-1 upload mistake treated as bona fide, rectification allowed to restore blocked input tax credit
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the petitioner had committed a bona fide error by uploading the GSTIN of the Kerala branch of R-5 instead of its Chennai (Tamil Nadu) branch in GSTR-1, which prevented R-4 from availing Input Tax Credit. Relying on analogous precedents, HC observed that where no revenue loss occurs and the mistake is inadvertent, technicalities should not obstruct legitimate rectification. Given the serious disputes between the petitioner and R-4/R-5, HC kept all inter se contentions open. HC partly allowed the petition and directed R-1 to R-3 to permit the petitioner to amend the relevant GSTR-1 returns within four weeks from receipt of the order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No quashing under Section 482 CrPC for bogus ITC fraud under Section 132 CGST and related offences
Case-Laws
GST
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., declined to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of ITC through bogus invoices, attracting offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, Section 11 of the CST Act, and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The Court noted that investigation is complete, a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed, cognizance has been taken, charges have been framed, and the matter is fixed for prosecution evidence. As the accused did not challenge the order framing charge, it has attained finality. Holding that the scope of interference at this stage is extremely limited and no exceptional ground is made out, the petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proceedings under section 74(1) quashed where seller's registration restored and no evidence of fraud, tax evasion or suppression
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed proceedings initiated under section 74(1) of the Act against the petitioner, finding no sustainable basis for fraud or tax-evasion allegations. The court held that restoration of the selling dealer's registration negated any presumption that transactions were with an unregistered dealer; documentary evidence established physical movement of goods, banking channel payments, and consistent ledger entries without contradiction by authorities. The circular dated 13.12.2023 restricts initiation under section 74(1) to cases involving fraud, misstatement, or suppression; absent adverse material or cogent findings of dishonesty, the impugned orders could not be sustained. All challenged orders were quashed and the writ petitions were allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention and seizure upheld where no e-way bill produced before movement; later generation doesn't cure defect
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the detention and seizure order of goods where no e-way bill was produced prior to commencement of movement; subsequent generation of the e-way bill after interception did not cure the defect. The court held that non-production of the e-way bill at the relevant time justified detention and seizure under the statutory scheme, and interference was unwarranted. The decision follows controlling Division Bench precedent that absence of an e-way bill at the time of interception renders seizure proceedings valid irrespective of asserted technical glitches or subsequent belated generation, so the challenge to the seizure failed and the petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seizure of goods unlawful where valid uncancelled e-way bill and documents show genuine transport, no intent to evade tax
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that seizure of goods was unlawful where a valid e-way bill accompanied the consignment and remained uncancelled, demonstrating genuineness of transport documents and negating any demonstrable intent to evade tax. The absence of the shipping address as an additional place of business and omission of a consignor's official signature on the delivery challan did not, without more, establish culpable noncompliance justifying seizure. The court found that, given the valid e-way bill and accompanying documentation, departmental action amounted to unnecessary litigation and breached statutory safeguards; prior analogous authority supported quashing of such proceedings. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =