Goods and Services Tax

Non-speaking GST cancellation and ignored condonation grounds vitiated both orders, leading to remand for fresh consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancellation could not stand where the original order was non-speaking and did not disclose the date, mode or manner of service of the show cause notice, despite service being disputed. Proceeding ex parte on an assumed service basis without recording those particulars rendered the cancellation order unsustainable, and it was set aside with remand for fresh decision after reply and hearing. The appellate order was also vitiated because the authority failed to consider the specific grounds for condonation of delay raised in the appeal memorandum and instead relied on assumptions not reflected in the appeal itself. That order too was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite demand notices cannot force multiple appeals or extra pre-deposit for penalty arising from one adjudication order.
Case-Laws
GST
A single adjudication order creating tax and penalty liability cannot be split through separate DRC-07 notices so as to force multiple appeals or an additional pre-deposit toward penalty. The statutory appeal mechanism is satisfied by one appeal against the composite order on deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand, without any further deposit at that stage for the penalty component. The Court permitted withdrawal of the two notices and issuance of a fresh composite DRC-07, and clarified that limitation for appeal would run from service of the fresh notice, with no further recovery pending compliance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice and reasoned condonation orders: assessment and appellate orders quashed for denying hearing and ignoring delay grounds.
Case-Laws
GST
An assessment order cannot be sustained where the authority fixes a personal hearing before the assessee's last available date to file a reply to the show cause notice, because that denies a fair opportunity of hearing; the HC quashed the original order and remitted the matter for fresh hearing and decision. An appellate order rejecting an appeal is equally invalid if it fails to consider a specific condonation of delay ground and give reasons on that request, even where rejection may ultimately be justified; the HC set aside the appellate order for non-consideration of the condonation plea.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Jurisdictional defect in adjudication order vitiated tax decision, but fresh hearing remitted to competent authority.
Case-Laws
GST
An adjudication order was vitiated for want of jurisdiction because it was digitally signed by the Commercial Tax Officer, the power to pass the order lay with the Deputy Commissioner; the digital signature was treated as primary evidence of the decision-making authority, and the State's explanation that the order had been uploaded through another officer's dashboard was rejected. The Court, however, did not accept the assessee's objection on limitation, holding that the show cause notice had been issued by the competent authority and the assessee had participated in the proceedings, so a procedural defect at the stage of the order did not justify avoiding adjudication altogether. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice requires physical service of show cause notice after registration cancellation; adjudication set aside and remitted.
Case-Laws
GST
Where registration had already been cancelled, adjudication could continue only on physical service of the show cause notice because the taxpayer could not be expected to access the Common Portal; service merely by electronic upload was therefore inadequate. The absence of physical notice caused a substantial breach of natural justice and denied an effective opportunity to file objections and be heard. The HC accordingly set aside the adjudication order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after physical service of notice, supply of relied-upon documents, and grant of due hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anti-profiteering in cinema ticket pricing: GST reduction had to be passed on, with interest only prospectively and no penalty.
Case-Laws
GST
Once GST was reduced, the seller remained under a statutory duty to pass on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, and regulated cinema ticket pricing did not displace scrutiny under anti-profiteering law. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Telangana cinema licensing orders and found no equitable relief because material facts had not been fully disclosed and the earlier High Court conditions were not shown to have been satisfied. It accepted the DGAP methodology, held that the base price should have been maintained after the tax cut, and found profiteering established. Interest was made recoverable only prospectively from 28.06.2019, while penalty was held inapplicable because the penalty provision came into force later.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rs 7 crore GST fraud unearthed in UP's Pilibhit; 13 fictitious firms detected
GST
Dated:- 17-4-2026
PTI
Pilibhit (UP), Apr 17 (PTI) An alleged fraud involving misuse of a GST ID to misappropriate funds worth around Rs 7 crore has been uncovered here, with police detecting 13 fake firms which were allegedly used to generate bogus bills, officials said on Friday.

According to police, the accused allegedly duped a local businessman on the pretext of arranging a bank loan and obtained his GST credentials before carrying out the fraudulent transactions.

The complainant, Mohammad Naeem, a resident of Mohalla Chhota Khudaganj and proprietor of Shahji Enterprises, runs a handpump installation and labour services business.

In

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory on Re-Computation of Interest under Table 5.1 of GSTR-3B
GST
Dated:- 17-4-2026

1. As a facilitation measure for taxpayers and assisting the taxpayers in doing a correct self-assessment, GST Portal auto-calculates interest on delayed filing of GSTR-3B based on the tax liability discharged and tax liability breakup provided in “Tax Liability Breakup, As Applicable” table.

2. This system computed interest is auto-populated and collected in the Table-5.1 of the subsequent period GSTR-3B. The facility is similar to the collection of late fees for GSTR-3B, which is also calculated after filing of GSTR-3B and collected in subsequent GSTR-3B period.

3. The detailed breakup of interest computation can be verified from the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ided under Table 5.1 of GSTR-3B. Upon clicking this option, the system recalculates the interest based on the latest and updated parameters available in the system and the revised interest amount will then be reflected in the updated system generated GSTR-3B PDF.

5. Taxpayers are advised to refer to the updated GSTR-3B system generated PDF for the revised interest values and accordingly, update the interest figures in Table 5.1 by manually editing the already auto-populated values in Table 5.1. The revised interest will also be visible on hover of respective field in Table 5.1 of GSTR-3B. Kindly note that the manually edited interest value shall not be less than the recomputed interest appearing in system generated GSTR-3B pdf.

Thanks

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 76 cannot justify double taxation where GST collected was already paid through another registration.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition against a show cause notice was entertained because the matter had been pending for years, pleadings were complete, no further factual enquiry was needed, and the notice itself showed that the amount collected as GST matched the amount paid to the Government. On those admitted facts, the Court treated the issue as a pure question of law on the scope of Section 76 of the CGST Act and held that the provision could not be used to demand tax again merely because payment was made through another GST registration of the same assessee in the same State. Section 76 targets non-remittance of tax collected, not double taxation where the revenue has already received the amount.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ jurisdiction in tax disputes is barred when natural justice is satisfied and a statutory appeal is available.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition in a tax matter was held not maintainable where the adjudicating authority had considered the taxpayer's reply, written submissions, annexures, invoices, classification plea, exemption claim and valuation objections. The Court found no breach of natural justice because adequate opportunity of hearing had been given and the impugned order dealt with the material on record while partly confirming and partly dropping the demand. As the dispute involved detailed factual and legal examination, the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, where all grounds could be raised. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to file an appeal on complying with the statutory deposit requirement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proper officer jurisdiction upheld for penalty on fraudulent ITC, with procedural defects treated as curable under the CGST Act.
Case-Laws
GST
A Joint Commissioner who had issued the show-cause notice before a later circular could validly pass the Order-in-Original imposing penalty for fraudulent availment and passing of ITC, since the proceedings had been initiated under Section 74 and the same officer had jurisdiction on the date of adjudication. The Court held that Section 160 of the CGST Act cured mere procedural defects or omissions where the proceedings were otherwise in substance in conformity with the Act. It also noted that the petitioner had not effectively contested jurisdiction at the notice stage or participated in the proceedings, so the objection was untenable. The writ challenge failed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 79 recovery notice upheld where the proper officer acted and no separate prior notice was required after final assessment.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 79 permits recovery of tax dues from third parties without any separate statutory requirement of prior authorization before recovery proceedings are initiated. The High Court found that the jurisdictional Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) was the notified proper officer under the Gazette notification, so the notice could not be challenged for want of competence. It also held that once the assessment order had attained finality, no further prior notice to the dealer was required before issuing a garnishee notice to the bank. The recovery notice was therefore lawful and the writ petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice bars GST recovery from a relative without prior liability determination and hearing, HC quashes bank attachment.
Case-Laws
GST
Recovery of GST dues from a deceased taxpayer's relative cannot be effected without prior determination that the relative is liable under Section 93, after notice and an opportunity of hearing. Where the petitioner and the deceased had separate GST registrations and distinct places of business, mere similarity of trade name was insufficient to justify automatic recovery. Freezing a bank account without adjudicatory process and without inviting objections also breached natural justice and due process, since attachment of bank property is a drastic measure requiring tangible material and a formed opinion. The HC held the recovery action suffered from a jurisdictional defect, quashed the attachment, directed de-freezing of the account, and left the Department free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Binding advance rulings defeated GST exemption claim for frozen meat supply, securing reimbursement of tax paid.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that exemption under Notification No. 2/2017 did not apply to the petitioner's supply of frozen meat, because the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling and the appellate authority had already determined that the goods were supplied in unit containers and attracted GST at five per cent. Those advance rulings were binding on the petitioner under Section 103 of the CGST Act, so it was required to pay the tax accordingly. As the respondents rejected reimbursement only on the mistaken assumption that the supplies were exempt, there was no legal basis to deny reimbursement of the GST already paid. The petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the balance GST amount, with interest payable on default.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Additional evidence in appeal must be examined under Rule 112 before rejection of the appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
The appellate authority misread Rule 112 by treating production of additional evidence in appeal as unavailable, without examining whether the case fell within clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1). The High Court held that the petitioner's contentions on the admissibility of additional evidence required consideration, and that the matter could also have been remanded to the original authority if factual examination was necessary. Because the substantive grounds and additional evidence were not considered under Rule 112, the appellate order could not stand. The order was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh decision, with all contentions left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice in GST adjudication: ex parte order on factual discrepancies set aside, with fresh hearing directed.
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside an ex parte adjudication under Section 73 where the show cause notice raised factual disputes on return mismatches, excess input tax credit, supplier default, delayed tax payment and related interest. It held that the petitioner had to be heard on merits before such discrepancies were decided, especially where the petitioner claimed material existed to rebut the alleged defaults. Because allowing the order to stand would cause serious financial prejudice, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to respond, and the consequential bank attachment was directed to be withdrawn.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory right of appeal protected against coercive recovery pending expiry of the appeal period and pre-deposit requirements.
Case-Laws
GST
Coercive recovery could not be used to defeat a subsisting statutory right of appeal where the appeal period under the Act and the relevant notification had not expired. The High Court protected the petitioner from recovery because the petitioner stated an intention to file an appeal with a stay application within the available period; if the appeal is filed, the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 10% would apply and recovery would not be pursued in any event. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the Department to recover dues in accordance with law if no appeal is filed, while all merits were kept open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite assessment orders for multiple financial years are unsustainable; separate proceedings must be initiated for each assessment year.
Case-Laws
GST
A single show-cause notice or composite assessment order cannot validly cover more than one tax period once the due date for filing the annual return has been reached. Applying an earlier Division Bench view, the HC held that the impugned assessment, framed by one order for multiple financial years, was unsustainable and set it aside. The matter was remitted with liberty to commence fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year, and the intervening period was excluded for limitation purposes. All other grounds raised by the petitioner were left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Unsigned assessment order invalid; defective service defeats delay objection and fresh reassessment may follow after due notice.
Case-Laws
GST
An unsigned assessment order is invalid, because the assessing officer's signature is mandatory and Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act do not cure that defect. Service of an unsigned order cannot be treated as valid service under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, so an objection based on delay in filing the writ petition failed. The impugned assessment order was set aside, liberty was reserved to complete a fresh assessment after due notice and with a duly signed order, and the intervening period was directed to be excluded for limitation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST input tax credit distribution through tax invoices was permitted for reverse charge common services during the disputed period.
Case-Laws
GST
Under the unamended GST framework, an Input Service Distributor could not procure and distribute credit relating to common services liable to reverse charge through the ISD route, because the then-existing definition barred such procurement. The later Finance Act, 2024 remedy applies only from 01.04.2025, so it did not govern the disputed period. For that period, the CBIC circular of 17.07.2023 clarified that common credit need not be routed only through ISD and could also be transferred by tax invoice under Section 31. As the taxpayer had used ISD for forward charge credit and tax invoices for reverse charge common credit, and had availed only eligible credit, the contrary order was quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST notice visibility after portal upgrade upheld; writ not entertained, but conditional reconsideration allowed on deposit and reply.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC refused to quash an ex parte GST adjudication order where the assessee had neither replied to the show cause notice nor filed a statutory appeal within limitation. It accepted that, after the portal upgrade on 16.01.2024, notices uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab were visible, so earlier decisions on non-visibility were inapplicable. The writ petition was therefore not entertained on the alleged notice defect, the Section 107 appellate remedy being the ordinary course. However, because the appeal period had expired during pendency of the writ, the Court granted a conditional opportunity to file a reply and seek reconsideration upon deposit of 50% of the tax and penalty, excluding interest.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Efficacious appellate remedy bars writ review in GST demand disputes where factual issues require statutory appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
Existence of an efficacious statutory appeal under the CGST Act justified refusal of writ jurisdiction against GST adjudication orders passed by municipal bodies. The Court found that the challenge was not a case of lack of jurisdiction, because the alleged GST immunity depended on examination of the underlying transactions and the adjudicating authority had already undertaken that factual exercise. As no exceptional circumstance, including a vires challenge, was shown, the petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy. Appeals filed within the time granted and with statutory compliances were to be heard on merits without objection on limitation, and all substantive contentions were left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Personal hearing and statutory appeal under GST: writ challenge failed where no reply was filed and no hearing was sought.
Case-Laws
GST
Under Section 75(4), a personal hearing is required on demand; because the taxpayer did not file a reply to the show-cause notice and never sought a hearing, the HC held there was no breach of natural justice. The Court also held that the summary GST demand order issued in DRC-07 under Section 73 was appealable under the statute, so objections on merits or technical grounds should have been raised before the appellate authority. Having failed to participate in the proceedings and let the appeal period lapse, the taxpayer could not invoke writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite GST assessment for multiple years is impermissible; year-wise proceedings required and fresh action permitted with limitation exclusion.
Case-Laws
GST
Assessment proceedings under the GST enactments must be confined to the relevant tax period, and a single composite show cause notice or composite assessment order for multiple assessment years is impermissible. Following prior High Court authority, the court held that the impugned DRC-01 notice and assessment order, both framed on a combined basis, were unsustainable; separate issuance of DRC-07 did not cure the defect. The composite assessment order was set aside, and the respondents were given liberty to initiate fresh year-wise proceedings. The period from the impugned order until receipt of the court's order was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of appellate pre-deposit must follow Rule 89, not Section 54, and cannot be withheld on a non-existent investigation.
Case-Laws
GST
Refund of a statutory pre-deposit made for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) was held not to be governed by Section 54, because such deposit does not assume the character of tax and falls within “any other amount” under Rule 89. The Court, following State of Jharkhand v. M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited, found that reliance on Section 54, a restrictive reading of Rule 89, and Section 56 to deny refund was misplaced, and the claim could not be rejected as time-barred or otherwise non-maintainable on that basis. It also held that withholding refund on the basis of a supposed pending SFIO investigation was unsustainable once it was shown that no investigation was pending.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =