Goods and Services Tax

Cash seizure under GST search powers was impermissible, requiring interest on refunded cash and release of retained devices.
Case-Laws
GST
Cash does not fall within the category of articles that may be seized during a search under section 67 of the CGST Act. Retention of seized cash until refund is illegal, and refund does not extinguish entitlement to accrued interest; the interest must be calculated and paid. Following issuance of a demand-cum-show-cause notice, seized mobile phones, pen drives and a bank card are liable to be released forthwith upon production of a certified copy of the order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic Cash Ledger balances do not discharge GST liabilities until debit, sustaining delayed-payment interest and recovery.
Case-Laws
GST
Self-assessed GST liability is discharged only when amounts credited to the Electronic Cash Ledger are debited and appropriated towards the relevant liability through the return. Mere deposit in the ledger before the return due date does not constitute payment or prevent interest under Section 50(1); interest accrues until actual debit, notwithstanding unsubstantiated technical difficulties. Recovery of the resulting interest after issuance of notice and consideration of objections does not breach principles of natural justice. The challenge to the interest demand and recovery proceedings was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Doctrine of merger preserves writ review after time-barred GST registration appeal and enables conditional registration restoration.
Case-Laws
GST
Doctrine of merger did not apply where a statutory appeal against GST registration cancellation was summarily dismissed as time-barred; the original cancellation order therefore remained open to challenge under Articles 226 and 227. HC held that dismissal on limitation did not bar writ relief. On the registrant's bona fide explanation for failing to answer the show-cause notice, HC adopted a justice-oriented approach, quashed the cancellation, and directed restoration conditional on timely filing of returns and payment of outstanding tax, interest and penalty. Relief was confined to the peculiar facts and declared non-precedential.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit requires supplier tax payment; insolvency proceedings do not remove the recipient's statutory condition.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit remains conditional on actual payment of the tax charged by the supplier to the Government. The statutory conditions for credit operate conjointly; a recipient who avails credit without ensuring that the supplier paid the corresponding tax cannot retain it, and the credit is recoverable according to law. Supplier insolvency and an approved insolvency resolution plan do not waive or displace this statutory tax-payment condition. The writ petition challenging recovery of the credit was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective input tax credit relief protects timely GSTR-3B claims from limitation-based denial and consequential liabilities.
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective section 16(5) permits input tax credit for specified financial years where claimed through GSTR-3B filed by the prescribed deadline, overriding the earlier limitation in section 16(4). GSTR-3B functions as the section 39 return for this purpose. Credit is availed when claimed and credited to the Electronic Credit Ledger; later utilisation does not constitute delayed availment. Discrepancies in GSTR-9 or GSTR-9C cannot by themselves extinguish credit already claimed through GSTR-3B. A demand founded solely on limitation cannot be sustained on new substantive grounds absent from the show-cause notice and original adjudication. Interest and penalty dependent exclusively on an invalid credit denial lack an independent basis.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Blocked Input Tax Credit Requires Specific Exclusions, While Interest Applies Only to Credit Actually Utilised
Case-Laws
GST
Blocked input tax credit must be assessed against the specific statutory exclusion applicable to each supply; the blocked-credit provision cannot operate as a generic residuary ground. Claimants must prove eligibility, any exception, and invoice-to-asset and business-use nexus through contemporaneous records, while assets claimed as plant and machinery must meet the statutory definition. Credits for gifts, food and catering, and unsupported expenditure were disallowed. A lawfully leviable cess separately charged must be included in taxable value. Interest on inadmissible credit applies only where wrongly availed credit is utilised, from utilisation until reversal or payment. Penalty depends on the prescribed statutory conditions and is limited to tax legally sustained, subject to recomputation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill vehicle-number mismatch raises competing views on tax-evasion intent and penalty where commercial records identify the correct vehicle.
Case-Laws
GST
An e-way bill showing a wholly different vehicle number generated differing views on whether a penalty for tax-evasion intent could arise. The Judicial Member considered correct Part B vehicle particulars mandatory, treated post-interception correction as ineffective, and found that the circumstances created a rebuttable presumption of evasion that remained unrebutted. The Technical Member treated invoices and commercial records showing the correct vehicle as evidence of a genuine transaction, concluding that a mismatch alone, absent a finding of evasion intent, could not support penalty. The point of difference was referred to another Member; the departmental appeal remains undecided.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Show Cause Notices Initiate Adjudication, Leaving Audit and Limitation Objections for Statutory Determination Rather Than Writ Intervention
Case-Laws
GST
GST show cause notices initiate, rather than conclusively determine, tax liability. Statutory adjudication must consider the registered person's reply; recording the reply as unsatisfactory does not preclude independent examination of whether it received adequate consideration. Objections concerning audit findings, limitation, tax computation and treatment of deposits fall for determination by the Adjudicating Authority. Writ intervention should not ordinarily pre-empt that statutory process, and substantive objections remain available during adjudication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST penalty liability for fraudulent invoices reaches non-taxable beneficiaries only upon proof of benefit retention and transaction instigation.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act may impose a penalty on any person, including an unregistered or non-taxable person, rather than only a taxable person. It applies only where a specified contravention under Section 122(1) is established and it is independently proved that the person retained the transaction's benefit and that the transaction occurred at that person's instance. As a penal provision, it operates prospectively for underlying acts or transactions occurring from 1 January 2021, rather than by reference to the show-cause notice date. Statutory appeals remain available for fact-specific findings despite writ determination of recurring legal questions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hookah service in designated smoking areas remains prohibited despite self-service or rental models under tobacco-control rules.
Case-Laws
GST
Hookah service in designated smoking areas is absolutely prohibited: the post-2017 replacement of “no other service” with “no service” bars every form of service, including self-service or purported rental models. Preparing, supplying, operating, or maintaining hookah for consideration remains a service because its use requires apparatus and technical assistance; patrons lack the unrestricted possession and control required for a rental. Food-safety law does not cover tobacco products, and municipal law provides no separate hookah-licensing power. Police may enforce smoking-in-public-place and tobacco-sale restrictions through statutory search, seizure, confiscation, and penalty powers.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit on fresh IPO issue expenses is available when proceeds further the company's business activities.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit on expenses attributable to the fresh issue component of an initial public offering is available where the net proceeds are used in furtherance of the company's business. Services used to raise capital for expansion, capital expenditure, working capital, repayment of borrowings and other business purposes have a substantial nexus with business operations and do not fall within blocked credits. In contrast, credit is unavailable for expenses attributable to an offer for sale by existing shareholders because those proceeds accrue to the shareholders rather than the company.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Extended GST limitation permits distinct scrutiny-based demands despite prior audit, but requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or tax-evasive suppression.
Notes
GST
Section 74's five-year limitation applies only where fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax provides the statutory basis for the demand. Section 61 return scrutiny and Section 65 audit are separate processes; prior audit findings or Section 73 action do not automatically bar a later Section 74 notice where scrutiny identifies a materially distinct unreconciled input tax credit discrepancy. Departmental knowledge is relevant only if the later notice rests on identical disclosed facts and grounds. At the notice stage, the taxpayer must contest duplication, computation and the alleged intent to evade in reply. If an appellate authority, tribunal or court finds Section 74 ingredients unestablished, Section 75(2) permits treatment of the notice under Section 73, subject to limitation and sustainable underlying liability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Blocked construction input tax credit persists despite taxable rental income, subject only to proven plant or structural-support exceptions.
Notes
GST
Input tax credit for construction of immovable property used in a rental business remains subject to statutory blocked-credit restrictions. Although renting is a taxable supply of services, the general business-use entitlement does not override the bar on works contract services for construction or goods and services used to construct immovable property on the taxpayer's own account. Taxable rental income alone neither meets the exception for further supply of works contract services nor establishes that a building is qualifying plant. Eligibility may depend on a fact-specific functionality analysis or proof that expenditure relates to a foundation or structural support integral to identified plant and machinery. Claims must also satisfy timing, documentary, disclosure and utilisation requirements; inadequate statutory disclosure may trigger fraud or suppression-based demand, interest and penalty exposure.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Inverted duty structure refunds require proof that cotton yarn was manufactured rather than merely traded before eligibility is determined.
Case-Laws
GST
Eligibility for an inverted duty structure refund on cotton yarn depends on factual verification of whether the claimant manufactured yarn using cotton fibre, packing materials and consumables, or merely traded in yarn. Documentary examination must establish the nature of the activity before refund eligibility is determined. Refund-rejection and appellate orders were quashed, with the claims remitted for factual verification and fresh final orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Reliance on Quashed GST Circular Requires Fresh Examination of Inverted-Duty Refund Eligibility for Cotton-Yarn Clearances.
Case-Laws
GST
Reliance on a previously quashed departmental circular could not sustain rejection of an inverted-duty refund claim for cotton-yarn clearances. High Court quashed the appellate order because it rested on that circular and required fresh examination of the inputs procured and their use in manufacturing and clearing cotton yarn before refund eligibility could be determined. The refund claims were remitted for fresh examination, with refund to be granted if eligibility is established.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transitional input tax credit claims may use extended filing and revision facility, subject to merits verification.
Case-Laws
GST
Transitional input tax credit claimants could file or revise Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 within the extended window available to aggrieved registered assessees. Claims filed or revised through that facility remain subject to verification on merits after a reasonable opportunity is provided. The extended mechanism therefore preserves access to transitional credit claims while requiring substantive verification before credit is granted.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory personal hearing requirements invalidate unreasoned GST demands based solely on duplicate e-way bills and require fresh adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory personal hearing under GST requires a real and effective opportunity where a taxable person requests a hearing before an adverse adjudication. Failure to provide a post-reply hearing vitiates the original adjudication and requires fresh consideration. A reasoned order must address the taxpayer's explanation, relevant facts, evidentiary basis, and grounds for inferring an additional taxable supply; a bare rejection of the reply is insufficient. Non-cancellation of a duplicate e-way bill is a material but non-conclusive circumstance, requiring cumulative assessment with primary evidence and surrounding facts. Following amendment, pre-show-cause intimation is enabling, so its non-issuance does not independently require remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Reasoned Appellate Orders Require Consideration of Grounds, with Remand for Effective Hearing and Fresh Adjudication
Case-Laws
GST
Reasoned and speaking appellate orders require consideration of the appellants' material grounds and cited authorities; a bare affirmation of original orders in identical terms fails to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Where original adjudication proceeded ex parte and objections concerning notice, relied-upon documents, and personal hearing remain unexamined, remand preserves the effective appellate remedy rather than a merits decision at the appellate stage. The appellate and original orders were set aside, with fresh adjudication requiring identification and availability of relied-upon documents, reasonable time to reply, an effective personal hearing, and reasoned orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Common portal service of GST notices may not establish effective notice, permitting writ relief against limitation dismissal.
Case-Laws
GST
Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through upload on the Common Portal may be inadequate where receipt is unacknowledged, no reply is filed, and the taxpayer lacks effective knowledge of the proceedings. Although the statutory limitation period binds the appellate authority, writ jurisdiction may address delay caused by circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control where refusing merits adjudication would cause grave injury or prejudice. In the stated circumstances, delay in filing the GST appeal against an input tax credit demand was condoned, the limitation-based dismissal was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the fresh appeal on merits without raising limitation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings require identical subject matter; distinct ITC allegations, adequate hearing notices, and supplier-payment conditions remain enforceable.
Case-Laws
GST
Parallel GST proceedings are barred only where proceedings under the State enactment were initiated earlier and both proceedings concern the same subject matter. Turnover reconciliation based on GSTR-3B and allegations of issuing invoices without supply and wrongly passing input tax credit involve distinct subject matters, so the bar does not apply. Ex parte adjudication does not breach natural justice where hearing notices are properly sent and the noticee neither appears nor provides a substantive reply. Input tax credit may validly be conditional on the supplier's payment of tax, a position affirmed by the Supreme Court. Statutory appellate remedy remains available for objections to the demand without a merits determination.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Curable GST registration non-compliance permits restoration consideration where bank details are corrected and statutory dues are cleared.
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancellation for non-disclosure of bank details and multiple registrations linked to a joint account is addressed as curable procedural non-compliance where fraud, fake invoicing, circular trading and tax evasion are absent. Because cancellation has serious civil consequences and GST law prioritises compliance over punishment, taxpayers willing to furnish correct bank details, file pending returns and pay statutory dues, interest and penalty should receive an opportunity to establish bona fides. Cancellation may be set aside and restoration considered through a reasoned hearing, with restoration conditional on filing pending returns and payment of outstanding dues.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural validity of GST assessment order defeats challenge despite zero-rated supply refund claim and related interest and penalty demands.
Case-Laws
GST
GST assessment order was challenged on the basis that zero-rated supplies entitled the petitioner to a refund under the IGST and CGST/TNGST provisions. The assessment also required payment of interest and penalty under the respective GST enactments. No procedural irregularity was found in the assessment process, and the writ challenge was dismissed. The dispute therefore centred on the procedural validity of the assessment despite the asserted entitlement to a refund for zero-rated supplies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill Part-B omissions require proven tax-evasion intent, while missing MOV-09 orders vitiate detention penalties.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 129 penalties for an unfilled Part-B of an e-way bill require independent, recorded evidence of intent to evade tax; a technical or clerical omission alone is insufficient where invoices, Part-A particulars and other documentation establish a transparent, tax-paid transaction. Penalties imposed without positive proof of tax-evasion intent are legally unsustainable. Following detention and consideration of objections, a final reasoned order in Form GST MOV-09 must be issued after providing a hearing. Failure to issue that speaking order prejudices the taxpayer's rights and vitiates the resulting penalty demand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Expired e-way bill penalties require tax-evasion context; clerical PIN-code errors without evasive intent should not trigger detention.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 129 penalty for an expired e-way bill must serve its tax-evasion prevention purpose, notwithstanding that the provision does not expressly require mens rea. Board instructions identifying situations in which section 129 need not be invoked bind the proper officer. Where goods matched the e-way bill and delivery challan, and an erroneous consignor PIN code shortened rather than extended validity, the lapse was clerical. Without any allegation of intent to evade tax, detention and penalty proceedings under section 129 were unwarranted.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill Part-B omissions require evidence of tax-evasion intent before detention penalties can be sustained.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 129 penalties for failure to update Part-B of an e-way bill require independent findings of an intent to evade tax where the goods movement is otherwise supported by genuine tax documents. The integrated electronic GST framework distinguishes technical or procedural omissions from active tax-evasion attempts. Where the invoice, Part-A details and underlying transaction transparently establish the movement, non-updation of Part-B alone should not sustain a penalty. Strict-liability principles developed under the legacy manual check-post regime are not treated as governing such electronic GST compliance failures.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =