Goods and Services Tax

Constitutional Validity Upheld for Blocking ITC Under Rule 86A Without Prior Hearing to Prevent Fraud
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, and the related CBIC Circular, which permit blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without prior hearing when there is reason to believe the credit was fraudulently availed or is ineligible. The Court recognized that immediate blocking is necessary to prevent irrecoverable loss, and the absence of pre-decisional hearing does not render the provision unconstitutional due to the availability of post-decisional hearing under Rule 86A(2). The petitioner's objection under this sub-rule must be decided expeditiously by the Commissioner, who may lift the blocking if satisfied. The Court directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned order on the lifting of ITC blocking within 15 days, thus disposing of the writ petition.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST and penalty upheld for goods detained due to missing Part B of E-way bill under Rule 138 MPGST
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the levy of IGST and penalty for detention of goods due to non-generation of Part B of the E-way bill, despite the consignment being accompanied by a tax invoice with a Letter of Undertaking number, consignment note, and letter of credit. The court affirmed that under Rule 138 of the MPGST Rules, both Part A and Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 must be generated electronically before the movement of goods exceeding Rs. 50,000 in value. The absence of Part B invalidated the E-way bill, rendering the transportation unauthorized. The court held that generation of Part B is a mandatory statutory requirement to validate the movement, especially for export consignments. Consequently, the impugned order imposing tax and penalty was found proper, and the petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 107(4) timeline is directory, Limitation Act applies, natural justice violated under Sections 73 and 75
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and the Proper Officer, holding that the timeline under Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act is directory, not mandatory, and the Limitation Act applies. The appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the notice under Section 73(1) was improperly communicated via the Additional Tab instead of the Normal Tab, frustrating proper service and the opportunity for hearing mandated under Sections 73(9) and 75(4). The restrictive scope of intra-court appeal was not invoked due to the fundamental procedural lapses. The judgment of the Single Judge was held to contain a patent error of law in interpreting timelines strictly while ignoring mandatory hearing provisions, warranting interference. The writ petition was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Restored Under CGST Act 2017 on Condition of Rs. 21,500 Payment Within Two Weeks
Case-Laws
GST
The HC directed the restoration of the Petitioner's GST registration under the CGST Act, 2017, conditional upon payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 21,500/- within two weeks from the order's upload date. Immediate restoration of registration was ordered to enable the Petitioner to discharge the dues. The Petitioner undertook to remit the demanded amount within 48 hours of restoration. The court disposed of the petition accordingly, emphasizing compliance with the payment timeline as a prerequisite for continued registration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective GST Cancellation Set Aside for Lack of Documents; Fresh Inspection Ordered Under GST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the retrospective cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration due to non-production of requisite documents, including the Aadhaar Card. Noting the petitioner's submission of a new rent agreement and availability of all necessary documents, the court directed a fresh inspection by the relevant authorities at the petitioner's new premises. The authorities were ordered to decide on the restoration of the GST registration within one month of the inspection. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation set aside; petitioner allowed to file pending returns and pay dues within 4 weeks for revival under Section 29
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation order of the petitioner's GST registration dated 31st July 2024, allowing the petitioner a final opportunity to file the pending returns for the entire default period. The petitioner must pay the outstanding tax, interest, fines, and penalties within four weeks from the date of the order. Upon compliance, the petitioner's GST registration shall be revived. The Court emphasized that the revival would not prejudice the revenue interests of the respondent authorities. The writ petition was disposed of subject to these conditions, thereby providing relief to the petitioner while ensuring statutory compliance and safeguarding revenue.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Adjudication Quashed for Ignoring Annual Returns and Improper ITC Reconciliation Under GST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the adjudication and summary orders for failure to consider the petitioner's annual returns for 2018-19 and 2019-20, relying solely on GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that the respondents were obligated to evaluate the annual returns, reconcile ITC claims across years, and account for ITC reversals via DRC-03. The impugned order, premised on an alleged excess ITC claim without such comprehensive analysis, was unsustainable. The matter involved factual determinations requiring reappraisal and was accordingly remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration at the stage of replying to the show cause notice. The 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

= = = = = = = =

Court orders fresh review of petitioner's documents despite late submission and format issues under procedural rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the petitioner's documents, though submitted belatedly to the first respondent, were not considered due to non-compliance with the prescribed format and timing. The second respondent also declined to admit these documents on appeal, citing procedural defaults and dismissal of the appeal. The court found that the first respondent erred in dismissing the documents solely based on format non-conformity, as substantive reconciliation details had been furnished. The second respondent should have considered these documents at the appellate stage instead of rejecting the appeal. The petitioner was thus deprived of a valuable right. Consequently, the HC allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration of the documents filed, directing disposal in accordance with law expeditiously.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner entitled to opportunity to submit evidence for ITC claim under Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) CGST/SGST
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order to the extent it denied the petitioner's claim of input tax credit (ITC) under Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts, on the ground that the petitioner could not trace the suppliers involved in the relevant transactions. Relying on precedent where a similar petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit requisite documents, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to a similar chance to substantiate the ITC claim. The matter is remitted for reconsideration limited to allowing the petitioner to produce supporting evidence in accordance with applicable circulars. The application is disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Special Leave Petition dismissed; statutory appeal must be filed within 30 days with pre-deposit as per rule
Case-Laws
GST
The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court's directive that the petitioners must pursue their statutory appeal within 30 days, accompanied by the requisite pre-deposit. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy and underscored the principles of natural justice, noting the absence of an opportunity for cross-examination regarding allegations of evasion of GST through bogus invoices from non-existent or non-operational firms. The High Court's decision to entertain the appeal on merits, notwithstanding limitation grounds, was upheld. Consequently, the petitioners' challenge was deemed premature and non-maintainable before the SC, mandating adherence to the appellate process prescribed by law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SC upholds refund formula under Rule 89(5) CGST/SGST Rules for unutilized input tax credit (5)
Case-Laws
GST
The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the applicability of the refund formula under Rule 89(5) of the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017 and related notifications. The Court upheld the validity of the formula for refund of unutilized input tax credit, rejecting claims of ambiguity or unworkability. It affirmed the High Court's view that although the formula may produce certain practical inequities, it aligns with legislative intent to grant limited refunds on accumulated ITC. The Court declined to interfere, holding that the GST Council's formula and related circulars are valid and their retrospective or prospective application does not warrant judicial intervention. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, confirming the existing legal framework for refund of unutilized ITC under the prescribed rules.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay of 394 Days in Appeal Under Section 107(4) GST Act Not Condoned Due to Insufficient Cause
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition seeking condonation of a 394-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017. The court held that Section 107(4) permits condonation of delay only up to one month upon satisfaction of sufficient cause, and any delay beyond that without cogent reasons cannot be condoned. The reasons provided for the extensive delay were deemed inadequate. Additionally, the challenge to the Adjudicating Authority's order on grounds of violation of natural justice due to improper hearing notice was rejected. Consequently, the statutory limitation period was upheld, and the appeal was not entertained beyond the prescribed time frame.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of unutilized input tax credit on compensation cess allowed under relevant circulars and Patson Papers precedent
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the respondent erred in rejecting the refund claim of unutilized input tax credit on compensation cess related to zero-rated supplies, misinterpreting relevant circulars. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and exporting goods exempt from compensation cess, was entitled to claim refund on coal purchased for production, similar to the precedent in Patson Papers. The court directed the respondent to process and sanction the refund of the cess amount claimed. Consequently, the impugned orders rejecting the refund were quashed and set aside, 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

= = = = = = = =

Section 73/74 GST Proceedings Cannot Be Based Solely on Turnover Discrepancy Without Fraud or Suppression Evidence

GST
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under Section 73/74 of the GST Act for tax determination based solely on the discrepancy between turnover declared in the E-way bill and Form GSTR-9, absent any allegation of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression, is impermissible. The respondent authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed under Section 73/74 without evidence of such misconduct. Furthermore, initiation under Section 74 requires a prima facie finding of fraud or suppression after preliminary investigation, which was not established. The impugned show-cause notice dated 27.12.2023, the consequential Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2024, and subsequent orders were quashed and set aside for violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. The petition was allowed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Recovery Proceedings Quashed for Compliance with Section 107(6) CGST Act and Circular No. 224/18/2024 GST
Case-Laws
GST
The HC examined the validity of recovery proceedings in light of the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal and compliance with Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, alongside the applicability of Circular No. 224/18/2024 GST dated 11th July, 2024. The petitioner had availed benefits under the said circular and deposited 10% of the demanded amount. The court held that since the petitioner complied with the prescribed guidelines by making the requisite deposit, the recovery notices issued on 28th February, 19th March, and 25th March 2025 were quashed. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Registration cancellation under WBGST/CGST Act set aside after Rule 25 inquiry confirms valid business premises
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation of registration of petitioner no. 1 under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, which had been initially revoked on grounds of fraud, willful misstatement, and suppression of facts regarding the existence of the business entity at the notified address. Following a directed inquiry and physical verification pursuant to Rule 25 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, the Court found the business premises to be legitimately operational at the specified location. Consequently, the Court held that the cancellation order dated 17th February 2023 and all consequential orders were unsustainable and quashed them. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST Refund Denied Due to Concealment and GST Registration Cancellation Since 2018, Petition Dismissed with Costs
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition seeking IGST refund with interest due to concealment of material facts by the petitioner, who failed to attend the personal hearing and did not satisfactorily address queries regarding the cancellation of its GST registration since 2018. The court held that no refund can be granted without restoration of the petitioner's GST registration. The petition was declared not maintainable and dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000, directed to be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Association.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax and penalty demand beyond statutory period under Section 129 of Odisha GST Act quashed for late notice issuance
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the impugned demand for tax and penalty issued on 11th September, 2024, was beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 129 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017, as the notice was dated 31st August, 2024. Consequently, the demand was invalid due to non-compliance with the prescribed timeline for issuance following vehicle detention. The court set aside and quashed the impugned demand, allowing the writ petition and disposing of the matter accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayers Moved to Large Taxpayer Unit for GST and Coal Cess Compliance from June 1, 2025
Circulars
GST – States
Certain taxpayers registered under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, have been transferred from various local charges to the Large Taxpayer Unit to enhance revenue administration. This jurisdictional change includes compliance responsibilities related to the Cess on coal under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, and the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976. The transfer applies to taxpayers listed in the attached annexure and takes effect from June 1, 2025. Any difficulties in implementing this order may be reported to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Authority Deselects Eight Registered Persons from Audit Under Section 65 of West Bengal GST Act 2017
Circulars
GST – States
The tax authority deselected eight registered persons from audit under section 65 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017, for the periods between April 1, 2021, and March 31, 2023. The deselection was based on reasons including cancellation of registration ab initio and referral to the National Company Law Tribunal. This decision applies immediately and removes these entities from the list of those subject to audit for the specified periods.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Net FDI has fallen steeply, domestic investors gripped by 'fear': Congress slams govt
GST
Dated:- 28-7-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Jul 28 (PTI) The Congress on Monday claimed that the net foreign direct investment has fallen steeply while domestic investors are gripped by “fear and uncertainty”, as it asked the government to support incomes, end its “crony capitalist and tax terrorism” policies, fix the GST, and protect Indian industries from Chinese dumping.
The opposition party's assertion came after Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman's reported remarks that IndiaÂ’s private sector investment has not kept pace with the growing public expenditure.
In a post on X, Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

awaits fundamental reform, Ramesh argued.
Finally, the “dumping” of cheap imports from China which is taking place despite the loss of Indian territory in Ladakh has also led to the closure of domestic manufacturing units, foreclosing the possibility of new investments, he said.
“Acknowledgment is the first step. Now comes the hard part the government needs to take action to support incomes, put an end to its crony capitalist and tax terrorism policies, fix the GST, and protect our industries from Chinese dumping,” Ramesh said.
The Congress has been attacking the government over its handling of the economy, claiming the issues of rising prices, decreasing private investment and stagnating wages were hitting the common people hard. PTI

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Adjudicating and appellate orders set aside for violating natural justice under GST Act and EPCG Scheme, case remanded for fresh decision
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside both the adjudicating authority's order dated 27.07.2023 and the appellate authority's order dated 21.05.2024, finding a violation of natural justice due to failure to consider the petitioner's reply and supporting circulars. The adjudicating authority did not provide reasoned or speaking orders, neglecting to analyze the applicability of the petitioner's submissions and statutory provisions under the Central/Bihar GST Act, 2017, and the EPCG Scheme. The appellate authority's partial favorable observations were insufficient to cure the procedural lapses. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, mandating thorough consideration of all contentions and documents in accordance with statutory requirements and the Government of India's export promotion policy. The 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

= = = = = = = =

Recovery of CGST before appeal period expiry was wrongful; refund with interest ordered under relevant statute
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the recovery of CGST from the petitioners' account prior to the expiration of the appeal filing period was erroneous. The Assistant Commissioner acknowledged the recovery was made by mistake. Consequently, the respondent is directed to rectify the error by refunding or reversing the erroneously recovered amount to the petitioners' account, along with applicable interest under the statute. This remedial action must be completed by 26.07.2025. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic Credit Ledger Payment Discharges GST Liability; Sec. 74 Not Applicable Without Wilful Misstatement or Suppression
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that since the entire tax liability was discharged through the electronic credit ledger before any intimation or show-cause notice, and there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression by the petitioner, the provisions of Sec. 74 of the GST Act are inapplicable. The petitioner's failure to offset the tax liability from the credit ledger was inadvertent and not indicative of fraud. Consequently, the HC directed the respondent AO to pass a fresh de novo order under Sec. 73 of the GST Act, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Denial of Input Tax Credit on Motor Vehicle Expenses Upheld Under Sections 16(1), 16(2), and 17(5) of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the denial of input tax credit (ITC) claimed on invoices related to motor vehicle purchase, repair, and maintenance, finding violations of Sections 16(1), 16(2), and 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to demonstrate payment to sundry creditors within the mandatory 180-day period as required under Section 16(2), relying solely on a chart without furnishing corroborative bank statements or documentary evidence. The Court affirmed the proper officer's conclusion that the petitioner did not substantiate timely payment, thereby justifying disallowance of excess ITC availed in GSTR-3B vis-à-vis GSTR-2A. Jurisdictional validity of the authority's action was not disputed, and partial compliance with the order was acknowledged. The petition challenging the officer's evaluation of evidence was dismissed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =