Goods and Services Tax

Tax Fraud Exposed: Systematic Evasion Through Fake Invoices Leads to Denial of Pre-Arrest Bail Under GST Regulations
Case-Laws
GST
HC denied pre-arrest bail in tax fraud case involving fraudulent ITC claims. Evidence prima facie indicated petitioner's proprietorship of enterprise generating fake GST invoices without actual goods/services supply. Despite prior interim protection and multiple notices, petitioner remained evasive and untraceable. Court determined petitioner was deliberately circumventing legal proceedings and misusing interim bail concessions. Consequently, the bail petition was summarily dismissed, rendering petitioner vulnerable to potential arrest and prosecution for systematic tax evasion through fabricated documentation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Thane businessman duped of Rs 4.5 cr in GST fraud
GST
Dated:- 12-5-2025
PTI
Thane, May 12 (PTI) A 60-year-old businessman from Maharashtra's Thane city was allegedly duped of Rs 4.5 crore by a man who carried out transactions through his company and evaded payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST), police said on Monday.
Based on a complaint, the police registered a case under sections 318(4) (cheating), 336 (forgery) and other relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and IT

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Challenging GST Assessment: Stone-Boulder Sales Price Comparison Invalidated Under Section 61 of Jharkhand GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that GST-ASMT-10 notices issued under Section 61 of Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 comparing petitioners' stone-boulder sales price with market price are ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The court determined that merely selling goods at a lower than market price does not automatically constitute a taxable discrepancy. The notices were deemed improper as they exceeded statutory powers, and the court quashed the notices, effectively ruling in favor of the petitioners by invalidating the tax department's assessment approach.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Gaps in E-Way Bill Compliance Don't Automatically Justify GST Penalties Without Proven Tax Evasion Intent
Case-Laws
GST
HC adjudicated a GST penalty case involving non-completion of e-way bill part-B. The court determined that mere technical non-compliance with Rule 138 regarding e-way bill documentation does not automatically justify penalty assessment under Section 129. Without substantive evidence demonstrating a deliberate tax evasion attempt, the administrative order imposing penalty was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the HC set aside the Assistant Commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling that procedural omissions alone cannot trigger punitive fiscal measures without proving intentional tax avoidance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer's ITC Credit Challenge Rejected as Administrative Mechanism Proves Transparent and Procedurally Sound Under Section 86A
Case-Laws
GST
The HC adjudicated a dispute concerning ITC blocking under CGST Act, 2017, s. 86A. The court examined the petitioner's challenge to the respondents' order regarding a blocked credit of Rs. 46,01,645/-. Upon careful review, the HC found that the petitioner's fundamental concerns were adequately addressed through clarifications provided by the respondents. The court's reasoning focused on the nature of the credit debit and the procedural transparency of the blocking mechanism. Consequently, the HC disposed of the petition, effectively resolving the dispute without mandating substantial further action, thereby affirming the administrative process's integrity in the electronic credit registration system.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Fairness Prevails: Denial of Personal Hearing Invalidates Administrative Order Under Section 75(4)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that principles of natural justice were violated when petitioner was denied personal hearing despite sufficient time between response filing and order issuance. The authority failed to provide opportunity under Section 75(4), which mandates hearing before adverse order. Given potential substantive arguments in petitioner's response, the procedural defect was material. The impugned order was consequently set aside, with petition allowed, emphasizing the critical importance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Lapses Invalidate Tax Appeal Order, Restore Petitioner's Right to Fair Hearing Under Section 107(6)
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 due to procedural irregularities in appeal processing. The Appellate Authority heard the matter on merits without prior intimation to the Petitioner regarding non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Section 107(6) of CGST Act. The court found a violation of natural justice principles and directed the Petitioner to deposit the requisite amount within five days, effectively remanding the case for proper procedural review.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer Directed to Resolve GST Refund Technical Challenges Through Direct GSTN Administrative Engagement and Specified Date Meeting
Case-Laws
GST
HC directed petitioner to approach GSTN Officer in New Delhi on specified date to resolve refund application technical issues involving PMT-03 form submission. The court found the dispute relatively minor and potentially resolvable through direct engagement with GST Network administrative channels. Petition was consequently disposed of, providing procedural guidance for addressing rejected refund claims through direct administrative intervention rather than prolonged judicial proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC Upholds Natural Justice, Remands Case and Grants Petitioner Extension to Respond to Show Cause Notice
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the writ petition, finding a violation of principles of natural justice. The court remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, granting the Petitioner time until 10th July 2025 to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The Adjudicating Authority must issue a personal hearing notice to the Petitioner after the reply is filed, effectively providing an opportunity to be heard that was previously denied.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Administrative Appeal Dismissed Without Notice Violates Natural Justice, Fundamental Right to Hearing Under Section 107(12)
Case-Laws
GST
HC found a violation of natural justice principles in an administrative appeal. The authority dismissed the appeal ex parte on 20.01.2022 without proper notice to the petitioner, despite the last fixed date being 18.01.2022. The order contravened procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate opportunity to be heard and lacking substantive reasoning as mandated under Section 107(12) of CGST Act. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, ensuring procedural compliance and fundamental principles of administrative adjudication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative Remedy Available: Finance Act Section 85 Provides Legal Pathway for Challenging Final Order Under Statutory Mechanism
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition on grounds of availability of alternative remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court noted a final order had been passed under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2) of CGST Act, 2017. Recognizing the potential for rendering the petitioner remediless, the court disposed of the petition while emphasizing the existence of an alternative statutory mechanism for challenging the underlying order through prescribed legal channels.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner Must First Exhaust Statutory GST Appeal Remedy Under Section 107 Before Seeking Judicial Intervention
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the petition challenging a GST order, holding that the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting direct judicial review, emphasizing the need to follow prescribed administrative appellate mechanisms. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal within four weeks, with the appellate authority considering the time spent in HC as valid for potential delay condonation. The petition was disposed of without examining the substantive merits of the original tax dispute.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Recovery Action Invalidated: Section 62(2) Nullifies Assessment Order After Timely GSTR 3B Filing and Tax Payment
Case-Laws
GST
HC invalidated the tax recovery action against the petitioner, finding the assessment order withdrawn under Section 62(2) as a matter of legal fiction. The court determined that since the original tax assessment order lost legal efficacy after the petitioner timely filed GSTR 3B and paid taxes within statutory period, the subsequent recovery proceedings were procedurally improper. The respondent tax authority acted ultra vires by initiating recovery without issuing prior notice, particularly after approximately five years from the original demand date. The HC directed respondent authorities to file their response within two weeks and scheduled further hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Contractors Win GST Reimbursement Rights for Pre-2017 Infrastructure Projects, Securing Fair Compensation for Indirect Transactions
Case-Laws
GST
HC allows contractor's petition, mandating reimbursement of GST impact for infrastructure projects executed before GST implementation. The court held that contractors awarded contracts prior to 01.07.2017 are entitled to GST reimbursement on indirect transactions. The respondent must release withheld amount of Rs. 19,86,44,336/- with statutory interest within six weeks and pay Rs. 50,000/- costs. The decision affirms contractual entitlements and protects contractors from undue financial burden arising from mid-contract GST regime changes.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Intermediary Status Clarified: IGST Refund Claim Upheld Under Section 13(8) and Existing Precedents
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that the petitioner is not an “intermediary” under IGST Act, Section 13(8) and Section 2(13). Based on an identical CESTAT order that had attained finality and CBIC Circular clarifying service tax and GST intermediary provisions, the court found no basis to differentiate the petitioner's case. The court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim with applicable interest within 4 weeks, effectively allowing the petitioner's claim for IGST refund.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Notice Challenge Rejected: Statutory Appeal Route Preferred Over Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction Under Section 74/73
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging tax SCN and final order under WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court held that the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy through appeal under Section 74/73, and cannot bypass such efficacious remedy by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Despite relying on a Madras HC precedent, the petition was rejected due to availability of alternative remedy and lack of exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention. The court emphasized that all contested issues can be adequately addressed through the prescribed appellate mechanism, rendering the writ petition non-maintainable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Credit Dispute Overturned: Procedural Errors Invalidate Order, Mandate Fair Reconsideration of Petitioner's Claims
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition, reversing the Input Tax Credit (ITC) order due to procedural irregularities. The court found respondent failed to properly consider petitioner's submissions and credit note, violating principles of natural justice. Relying on precedent from a similar tax dispute, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the tax authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, ensuring fair evaluation of all submitted documents and contentions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Claim Resolution Ordered: Administrative Process to Address Tax Dispute Within Eight Weeks of Filing
Case-Laws
GST
HC directs second respondent to resolve petitioner's representation regarding GST claim within eight weeks, following precedent set in prior case involving educational institute. Tax authorities instructed to process invoices as standard, without engaging in underlying dispute. Consistent with previous judicial guidance, the court provides opportunity for administrative resolution while maintaining procedural neutrality. Petition disposed of with specific time-bound directive for administrative action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Long-term Industrial Plot Leasehold Rights Transfer Deemed Non-Taxable Supply Under GST Act Section 7(1)(a)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that assignment of long-term leasehold rights in an industrial plot by a lessee to a third-party assignee constitutes a transfer of immovable property benefits, not a taxable supply under GST Act. Relying on precedent in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce case, the Court determined that such transaction falls outside section 7(1)(a) read with Schedules II and III, thereby exempting the transfer from GST levy. Consequently, the show cause notice was quashed, and the petition was allowed, affirming the non-applicability of GST to leasehold rights transfer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

‘God-Sent Tax’ unites India, funds security measures: Himanta on Cong’s ‘Gabbar Singh Tax’ jab
GST
Dated:- 9-5-2025
PTI
Guwahati, May 9 (PTI) Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Friday said that the GST regime, brought by the BJP-led Central government, funds the country’s security and resilience, and called it ‘God-Sent Tax’.
Sarma also dismissed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's description of GST as ‘Gabbar Singh Tax’.
The chief minister also lauded the Indian armed forces for crushing all attempts by Pakistan to strike at multiple targets in the country.
“Rafale jets and S-400 systems don’t just appear — they are built on the strength of our taxpayers,” Sarma posted on X, referring to the French fighter jets and th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Excess Stock Discovery Under GST: Tax Assessment via Sections 73/74, Not Punitive Section 130
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that when excess stock is discovered during a survey under GST Act section 67, proceedings must be initiated under sections 73/74, not section 130. The statutory framework mandates that if a registered dealer fails to account for goods, the Proper Officer shall determine tax liability through sections 73/74. The court emphasized that GST Act is a comprehensive code, and section 130 cannot be invoked when specific provisions exist for addressing undeclared stock. The petitioner's challenge to proceedings was consequently allowed, establishing a clear legal principle that excess stock discovery triggers assessment proceedings rather than punitive actions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Development Rights Transfer Taxable Under GST: No Exemption for Pre-Completion Consideration and Upheld Recovery Mechanism
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismisses petitioner's challenge to GST notification regarding tax recovery and development agreement. The court held that transfer of development rights is amenable to GST, and the petitioner cannot claim exemption since consideration was received before completion certificate. The court found no violation of natural justice or procedural irregularities. The state's contention that construction services are liable for GST under reverse charge mechanism was upheld. The writ application was dismissed, confirming the tax liability for the financial year 2018-19 and extending the recovery time limit until 31.03.2024.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pre-Deposit Compliance Required: Petitioner Must Deposit Remaining Amount Within 30 Days Under Section 107 of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that the petitioner must deposit the remaining pre-deposit amount within 30 days under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017. Upon compliance, the appellate authority shall review the interim reply and supporting documents, and adjudicate the appeal on merits regarding availment of ITC. The petitioner had already deposited Rs. 2.5 crores, satisfying a substantial portion of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The petition was disposed of with directions for further procedural steps.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Credit Dispute Resolved: Procedural Delays Cannot Deny Legitimate Input Tax Credit Under GST Section 16(5)
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the writ petition challenging input tax credit rejection, remanding the matter to the tax authority. The court relied on a prior Division Bench judgment interpreting Section 16(5) of the GST Act, which held that taxpayers can avail tax credits despite procedural delays. The assessment order dated 30.04.2024 was set aside, directing the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment consistent with the legal interpretation of the non-obstante clause in the statutory provision.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Legal Representatives Must Be Notified Before Tax Determination Against Deceased Taxpayer Under Section 93 Liability Rules
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that a tax determination cannot be made against a deceased person. Section 93 addresses liability of legal representatives only for ongoing or discontinued businesses, but does not authorize determination against a deceased individual. Issuance of show cause notice (SCN) must be made to legal representatives, and determination must occur after seeking their response. The present case's determination, which was made against the deceased without notifying legal representatives, was deemed invalid and the petition was consequently allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =