HC · Bombay ● Allowed Abracadabra India and Ors. v The Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3039-HC(Bombay)-GST 16 October 2026 In Abracadabra India and Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3039-HC(Bombay)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the order dated 31.03.2023 demanding ₹62,42,948/- as tax, interest and penalty, contending that the SCN and ASMT-10 notices were placed only in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' section in the Services tab of the GST portal and were not visible on the homepage under 'View Notices and Orders', the Court followed the Division Bench ruling in T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 6175) to hold that no mistake could be attributed to the petitioner, quashed the impugned order, the DRC-07 dated 31.03.2023 and the recovery letter dated 17.11.2023, directed both parties to appear before the respondent on 27.10.2026, and permitted fresh proceedings keeping the question of limitation open. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v M/s. Shri Shyam Kripa Associates 2026-juristway.com-3038-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v. M/s. Shri Shyam Kripa Associates, 2026-juristway.com-3038-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 13.06.2025 which had set aside the demand of excess ITC of ₹20,81,660/- and disallowed banking ITC of ₹9,184.92/- under Section 73, the Tribunal held that the taxpayer was entitled to claim deferred ITC for FY 2017-18 in FY 2019-20 under the retrospectively inserted Section 16(5) of the CGST Act (per A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd., Sikkim HC), that the GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch was a reconciliation issue as clarified in CBIC Circular Nos. 183/15/2022-GST and 193/05/2023-GST, and that Section 17(5) does not bar ITC on banking services received in furtherance of business, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Associated Cashews v The Commissioner of CGST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3037-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 16 October 2026 In Associated Cashews v. The Commissioner of CGST Thiruvananthapuram, 2026-juristway.com-3037-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the appellant, an exporter of cashew kernels, challenged the rejection of refund of ₹19,79,405/- (November 2018: ₹5,26,330/-, December 2018: ₹9,19,176/-, February 2019: ₹5,33,899/-) being IGST originally paid on exports but reported in the wrong GSTR-3B column (Table 3.1(a) instead of 3.1(b)), which prevented automated Customs refund and necessitated a second payment in August 2019 that was subsequently refunded, the Tribunal found that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) had mechanically rejected the appeals without examining the GST returns, relied on Article 265 of the Constitution and the Orissa HC ruling in Rajendra Narayan Mohanty to hold that excess paid tax cannot be retained by the Government, quashed the OIA dated 31.10.2022, and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Oxygen The Digital Shop v The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3036-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 16 October 2026 In Oxygen The Digital Shop v. The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3036-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the appellant, a partnership firm trading in digital gadgets, challenged the denial of ITC of ₹11,22,940/- (CGST ₹5,61,470/- and SGST ₹5,61,470/-) on four invoices for joinery, carpentry and painting services (SAC 995476/995473) procured for interior furnishing of two rented showrooms, the Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 17(5)(c)/(d) restricts ITC on construction, renovation, additions or alterations only to the extent of capitalisation to immovable property, that the CA certificate confirmed the GST component was not capitalised and was accounted separately as ITC with no depreciation claimed thereon, and that the expenditure was classified under Furniture and Fixtures as movable assets, set aside the impugned order and allowed the ITC claim with consequential relief. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Ashok Kumar Singh v M/s. Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-3035-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Ashok Kumar Singh v. M/s. Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3035-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 13.10.2021 (incorrectly stated as 23.11.2022 in the order) which had set aside the demand of tax ₹3,83,400/- plus equal penalty and interest imposed under Section 74 for alleged ITC availed on invoices from M/s Neon Pharma Chem (Maharashtra), the Tribunal found that the taxpayer had produced purchase orders, tax invoices, e-way bills, consignment documents with vehicle particulars, banking-channel payments and supplier's GSTR-1/GSTR-3B returns, that the supplier's registration which had been cancelled was subsequently restored by the jurisdictional authority thereby nullifying the bogus-supplier allegation, and that the first appellate authority had forwarded the evidence to the adjudicating authority for a report before deciding the appeal, dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the OIA. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Sanjeev Kumar Singh v M/s. Crown Glass Industries 2026-juristway.com-3034-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. M/s. Crown Glass Industries, 2026-juristway.com-3034-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 04.12.2024 which had set aside the penalty and fine imposed under Section 130(2) read with Section 122 after SIB Mainpuri found unaccounted raw material worth ₹10,83,502/- during inspection of the respondent's glass manufacturing premises, the Tribunal held, relying on Allahabad HC decisions in Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, Shri Om Steels and V.K. Electricals, that where excess or unaccounted stock is found during survey of business premises, the proper officer is empowered only to initiate proceedings under Section 73/74 read with Section 35(6), and not under Section 130, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal as sans merit. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Remanded Kunwar Mrityunjay v M/s. Deepak Lamination 2026-juristway.com-3033-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 16 October 2026 In Kunwar Mrityunjay v. M/s. Deepak Lamination, 2026-juristway.com-3033-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 28.02.2024 which had allowed the respondent's ITC claim of ₹67,500/- on purchases from M/s M.H. Enterprises (found non-existent by SIB), the Tribunal extensively analysed the Gujarat HC ruling in Maruti Enterprises and the Jaipur HC ruling in Sumetco Alloys on the cumulative and mandatory nature of Section 16(2) conditions, held that the First Appellate Authority had confined its analysis to the supplier's active portal status without examining actual movement of goods under Section 16(2)(b), and that the OIO similarly lacked adequate findings on the documentary evidence, set aside both orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with directions to verify e-way bills, transport documents and all evidence and afford the respondent effective opportunity of hearing. GSTAT · Agra ● Allowed Trishul Asphalt Products v Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeals Mathura & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3032-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Trishul Asphalt Products v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeals Mathura & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3032-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the appellant's first appeal against order dated 26.02.2022 was filed under the amnesty scheme (Notification No. 53/2023) on 31.01.2024 but was dismissed as time-barred because the entire 12.5% pre-deposit was debited from the electronic credit ledger instead of the prescribed split of 2.5% from the electronic cash ledger, the Tribunal relied on M/s Friends Mobile v. State of Bihar (Patna HC) and M/s Raiyan Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (Patna HC) to hold that the GST portal's technical glitch preventing ledger selection cannot prejudice the statutory remedy of appeal, set aside the OIA dated 25.09.2024, granted 30 days to pay the shortfall cash component, and directed the first appellate authority to admit and decide the appeal afresh on merits. SC ● Remanded Senior Intelligence Officer v Mohammed Kamran 2026-juristway.com-3023-SC-GST 16 October 2026 In “Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran, 2026-juristway.com-3023-SC-GST” , where the proprietor of M/s MK Traders, arrested on 16.09.2025 on a complaint alleging fake invoices and fraudulent ITC under Sections 132(1)(b), (c) and (f), obtained bail from a Single Judge on 26.12.2025 in a petition listed during the winter vacation on his memo although the Department had been given two weeks to object, and had meanwhile pursued bail before the Sessions Court and release in a writ petition in which ad-interim relief was refused on 22.12.2025 without disclosing these to the bail court, the Court, after viewing the recording of the hearing, found that the Department’s counsel had sought an adjournment and then assisted the court, but held that the respondent had engaged in forum shopping, suppressed material facts and lacked uberrima fides. Without cancelling bail outright, it set aside the disposal of the criminal petition, revived it before the same Single Judge to be decided on merits preferably by the end of the year, continued the respondent on interim bail on earlier terms, and allowed the Department two weeks to file a counter affidavit. GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Partly Allowed Deltron (A Division of Continental Device India Private Limited) v Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Ludhiana, Commissioner, Ludhiana & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3022-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Deltron (A Division of Continental Device India Private Limited) v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Ludhiana & Others, 2026-juristway.com-3022-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST” , where transitional credit of Rs. 9,89,849 claimed in TRAN-1 — Rs. 2,90,845 of CVD and additional duty on capital goods imported before but received after 01.07.2017 under Table 6(a), and Rs. 6,99,004 of excise duty paid on goods cleared for export on 29.06.2017 under Table 7(a) — was disallowed with interest and penalty of Rs. 98,985 and upheld on 14.10.2025, the Tribunal, relying on the Explanation to Section 140(2), Rule 117(2)(a), the CBIC FAQ and Circular No. 182/14/2022-GST, allowed the capital goods credit as admissible under both regimes; but held that no provision of Section 140 covers excise duty on export clearances, Table 7 relates to inputs in stock, recovery lies under the GST law, and Adfert Technologies, Tara Express and Circor Flow were distinguishable. The appeal was partly allowed, with interest recalculated and penalty reduced to Rs. 69,900. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Chennamkudiyil Timbers, Ernakulam v The Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Keralam State, Thiruvananthapurm 2026-juristway.com-3021-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Chennamkudiyil Timbers, Ernakulam v. The Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, 2026-juristway.com-3021-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where an order under Section 73(9) for 2017-18 confirmed Rs. 62,628 for ITC not reflected in GSTR-2A, Rs. 97,458 on a sales return unsupported by portal-declared debit notes, and interest of Rs. 1,54,314 for belated filing, and the first appellate authority rejected five pages of submissions in a single line, the Tribunal held the appellate order non-speaking and, deciding on merits, found it undisputed that output tax of Rs. 99,449.20 had been paid in excess against an ITC shortfall of only Rs. 31,313 each under CGST and SGST, so that, applying the reasoning in Rejimon, there was no short payment; that the Revenue’s insistence on a separate refund to test unjust enrichment failed as Section 54(8)(c) takes such refunds outside that test; that the sales-return demand was confirmed on a ground outside the notice and portal declaration of credit/debit notes was not mandatory in 2017-18; and that the interest demand was vague and inconsistent between notice and order. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Sansco Technologies (Kerala) Private Limited v The Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram 2026-juristway.com-3020-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Sansco Technologies (Kerala) Private Limited v. The Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram, 2026-juristway.com-3020-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where the super distributor of Oppo mobile phones in Kerala was served a notice dated 22.07.2023 alleging excess ITC of Rs. 13,97,613 for 2017-18 on a head-wise comparison of GSTR-2A with GSTR-3B, the demand was confirmed on 14.12.2023 without hearing and upheld on 06.06.2025, and the appellant’s undisputed reconciliation, adding IGST of Rs. 56,31,242 on imports and adopting the latest GSTR-2A, showed aggregate available credit exceeding credit availed by Rs. 45,48,864.70, with shortfalls of Rs. 1,37,242.10 (CGST) and Rs. 1,36,452.71 (SGST) against surplus IGST of Rs. 48,22,559.51, the Tribunal held that Section 49(5)(a) gives the taxpayer a vested right to use surplus IGST towards CGST and SGST, that Rejimon and the decisions following it bind the Bench, that no short payment arose to attract Section 73, and that the original order passed without hearing and the mechanical appellate order violated natural justice; contentions under Sections 16(2)(c) and 155 were irrelevant as the notice made no such allegation. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Remanded RLCR 7super Market v Sunil N Ranote, Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3019-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 16 October 2026 In “RLCR 7 Super Market v. Sunil N. Ranote, Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh & Others, 2026-juristway.com-3019-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST” , where, after an audit for July 2017 to March 2022, a consolidated notice dated 30.09.2023 led to confirmation of Rs. 3,46,343 under Section 74 on GSTR-3B versus GSTR-2A excess ITC of Rs. 1,54,194 claimed to relate to the previous year, IGST of Rs. 1,52,088 where deposits were made under other heads, and Rs. 28,474 of ITC availed under wrong heads, upheld in appeal on 16.02.2026, the Tribunal rejected the challenge to the consolidated notice and order; held that the appellate authority had not disputed admissibility of prior-year ITC on law and the appellant must be allowed to prove its claims on all three counts before the adjudicating authority; and, applying Tata Steel, held that paragraph 15 of the notice contained only a generic recital without foundational facts of fraud or suppression. Demand and penalty under Section 74 were set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination under Section 75(2) as if under Section 73, with interest under Section 50 to follow the tax found payable. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed The Commissioner of CGST & CE Kochi v Parthas Textiles 2026-juristway.com-3018-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi v. Parthas Textiles, 2026-juristway.com-3018-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where an audit demand for July 2017 to March 2021 against a textile retailer was confirmed on 27.12.2023 and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Kochi, by order dated 07.11.2024, partly allowed the appeal by directing the Deputy Commissioner to examine reconciliations of GSTR-2A versus GSTR-3B, RCM payments and blocked credit and delete the demand to the extent found admissible, the Tribunal, with the taxpayer’s consent, held that such reference back is expressly barred by Section 107(11), which empowers the appellate authority to make further inquiry itself, set aside the order-in-appeal and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to decide afresh on its existing findings, without referring it to the adjudicating authority, within eight weeks. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Shri Traders, Palakkad v The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi 2026-juristway.com-3017-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Shri Traders, Palakkad v. The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi, 2026-juristway.com-3017-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where the show cause notice dated 20.11.2023 for 2018-19 proposed disallowance of IGST credit of Rs. 6,93,806 on six invoices because the suppliers had not filed GSTR-3B, invoking Section 16(2)(aa), the appellant pointed out that the provision commenced only on 01.01.2022, and the order dated 03.04.2024 confirmed the demand by finding that the suppliers had not paid the tax under Section 16(2)(c), which the first appellate authority upheld treating the reference to Section 16(2)(aa) as a patent error, the Tribunal held that the notice charged only non-compliance with Section 16(2)(aa) and the reproduction of the whole of Section 16 did not put the appellant on notice of any contravention of Section 16(2)(c); that, following Armour Security and Brindavan Beverages, the demand was confirmed on a ground outside the notice in breach of Section 75(7); that ITC Ltd. concerned non-mention of a sub-clause and Pradyumna Steels and Merino Panel concerned citation of the wrong source of a power, not culpability on an uncharged ground; and that Section 160(1) did not apply. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Singapore Airlines Ltd. v The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi 2026-juristway.com-3016-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi, 2026-juristway.com-3016-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where the appellant filed eight refund claims aggregating Rs. 45,92,528 for October 2019 to March 2020, January 2021 and March 2021 on unabsorbed credit notes for tickets cancelled during COVID-19, sold largely through IATA agents and settled via the Billing Settlement Plan, and the claims were rejected for want of proof of excess payment and of refund to passengers and the common Order-in-Appeal dated 08.12.2022 further held them time-barred under Section 34(2), the Tribunal found that the refund voucher, tax invoice and credit note for each ticket are linked by ticket number and passenger name, that refunds were processed in line with the Supreme Court’s directions in Pravasi Legal Cell, that Circular No. 137/07/2020-GST permits a claim as excess payment where no output liability exists to absorb credit notes, that the transactions were B2C, and that the ITC-reversal proviso in Section 34(2) was inserted only from 01.10.2025. The order-in-appeal was set aside and all eight appeals allowed, with refunds to be processed within two weeks with interest from the dates of the original applications. HC · Calcutta ● Allowed M/s Darbesh Medical Enterprise v The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3031-HC(Calcutta)-GST 15 October 2026 In M/s Darbesh Medical Enterprise v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3031-HC(Calcutta)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 passed pursuant to SCN in Form DRC-01 dated 19.09.2025, contending that the notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab on the GST portal and no separate intimation was given, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case, that uploading the SCN only under the said tab without separate intimation constituted a violation of natural justice, quashed the adjudication order, and directed the petitioner to file a reply within two weeks and the respondent to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within 12 weeks after affording personal hearing. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed M.K. Enterprises v The Commissioner of State GST, State GST Office Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3030-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 15 October 2026 In M.K. Enterprises v. The Commissioner of State GST & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3030-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the appellant, engaged in iron scrap trading, challenged the demand of ₹26,91,684/- (tax ₹11,02,074/- plus equal penalty and interest) under Section 74 of the UPGST Act for allegedly wrongful availment of ITC on purchases from M/s A.S. Enterprises which was subsequently found non-existent, the Tribunal held that subsequent non-existence of the supplier does not automatically establish the recipient's fraud, relied on Safecon Lifesciences (SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on 17.07.2026), Singhal Iron Traders and HCL Infotech to hold that Section 74 requires specific evidence of fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement attributable to the recipient, noted the absence of evidence of cash-back, circular trading or fabricated documents, and set aside the OIO and the consequential appellate order with consequential relief. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed Sunny v Shrawan Kumar Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, (Mobile Squad) Kanpur & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3029-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 15 October 2026 In Sunny v. Shrawan Kumar Mishra, Assistant Commissioner & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3029-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the appellant (M/s Shri Ashok Kumar Arora Oil Company, Ludhiana) challenged the penalty of ₹6,76,694/- imposed under Section 129(3) after interception of a tanker carrying refined glycerine approximately 500 km off the declared route near a Kanpur factory gate, the Tribunal found that the DRC-07 itself recorded the Place of Supply as Punjab thereby destroying the Revenue's own allegation of diversion, relied on the Allahabad HC ruling in Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar holding that GST law imposes no obligation to declare or follow a particular route, observed that the driver's hearsay statement referencing an unconnected third party was uncorroborated, that no unloading or supply actually took place, and applying Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Odisha, set aside both the MOV-09 dated 23.08.2024 and the OIA dated 20.11.2025 and directed refund of the deposited penalty. HC · Allahabad ● Partly Allowed M/s Unique and Divine Eternity v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3015-HC(Allahabad)-GST 15 October 2026 In “M/s Unique and Divine Eternity v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Others, 2026-juristway.com-3015-HC(Allahabad)-GST” , where the petitioner’s registration was suspended on a show cause notice dated 27.04.2026 that merely quoted statutory provisions and cancelled on 01.06.2026, the Department placed additional inputs before the appellate authority by letter dated 14.07.2026, the petitioner objected on 17.07.2026, and the appeal was rejected on 20.07.2026 without hearing on those objections, the court, confining relief to the appellate order, held that once material not forming part of the original proceedings is introduced and objected to, the affected party must be heard, following Mahaveer Trading Company, and that Anandeshwar Traders and Khan Enterprises hold that Rule 112 does not permit the Department to adduce additional evidence; the appellate order was set aside and the appeal remitted for a fresh order within two months. GSTAT · New Delhi ● Allowed Jai Maa Enterprises v Assistant Commissioner (L & J) & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3014-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST 15 October 2026 In “Jai Maa Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (L & J) & Others, 2026-juristway.com-3014-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST” , where the appellant sought to delete “Sandeep Bansal”, inadvertently named as respondent No. 5, and after a defective substitution filed an affidavit seeking to implead the jurisdictional tax authority, the Tribunal, the Department having no objection, allowed the application, directed that the respondent be read as “Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi West Commissionerate, Mundka Division”, and required an amended memo of parties within three days. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed Aparnaa Fashions Fabrics Through its Proprietor Shri Anil Kumar Khemka v The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue State Tax, Kolkata, The Joint Commissioner of Revenue State Tax, Kolkata 2026-juristway.com-3013-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 15 October 2026 In “Aparnaa Fashions Fabrics, Through its Proprietor Anil Kumar Khemka v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Kolkata & Another, 2026-juristway.com-3013-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST” , where a Section 73 demand for short payment of GST for 2018-19 of Rs. 29,246 each under CGST and SGST was confirmed with interest and penalty and upheld by the first appellate authority on 30.04.2025, and the appellant, having since paid the tax, contended that penalty was arbitrary absent conscious disregard of obligations, the Tribunal held that Hindustan Steel was distinguishable on facts, that interest follows the delayed payment and that failure to pay tax with interest within thirty days of the notice attracts penalty under Section 73(9), and dismissed the appeal. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Deepsikha Residency v The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) Durgapur Zone 2026-juristway.com-3012-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 15 October 2026 In “Deepsikha Residency v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal), Durgapur Zone, 2026-juristway.com-3012-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST” , where tax of Rs. 7,86,524 with interest and penalty was demanded under Section 73 for 2019-20 from a developer of a residential apartment at Kenduadihi, Bankura, at 18% under reverse charge for not procuring 80% of inputs and input services from registered suppliers under Notification No. 3/2019-Central Tax (Rate), and the appellate authority rejected the appeal for non-production of documents, the Tribunal, with the Revenue’s consent, set aside the appellate order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority, directing the taxpayer to file the documents with a list to be acknowledged under seal and the authority to pass a reasoned order within six months after hearing. GSTAT · New Delhi ● Dismissed Laldeo Rajak v Kanthwal Services, Proprietor 2026-juristway.com-2983-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST 15 October 2026 In Laldeo Rajak v. Kanthwal Services, Proprietor, 2026-juristway.com-2983-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST , where the Department appealed the OIA which had reduced the interest liability for FY 2017-18 from Rs. 73,95,561 to Rs. 40,47,151 by computing interest only to the date of challan credit rather than the date of return filing, and the respondent cross-objected seeking further reduction and deletion of penalty of Rs. 45,829, the Tribunal held on Issue I that the tax demand of Rs. 4,58,289 was correctly set aside since DRC-03 was filed before the OIO was passed; on Issue II that interest under Section 50(1) ceases to run once tax stands credited to the Government’s account through PMT-06, following Arya Cotton Industries (Gujarat HC), Eicher Motors (Madras HC), Vishnu Aroma Pouching (Gujarat HC), Symphony Ltd. (Gujarat HC) and Bangalore International Airport (Karnataka HC); on Issue III that the balance interest of Rs. 25,47,151 (after crediting Rs. 15,00,000 already paid) was correctly quantified; and on Issue IV that the penalty of Rs. 45,829 was rightly imposed since payment was made outside the Section 73(8) thirty-day window. Both the Department’s appeal and the Cross Objection were dismissed. HC · Gauhati ● Remanded M/s. Rishi Stonex v The State of Assam, The Principal /chief Commissioner of State Tax Goods and Services Tax Assam, The Joint Commissioner of State Tax Guwahati, Global Impex Service, The Container Corporation of India 2026-juristway.com-3028-HC(Gauhati)-GST 14 October 2026 In M/s. Rishi Stonex v. The State of Assam & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3028-HC(Gauhati)-GST , where the petitioner, a consignee of marble, granite and tiles transported by rail to Amingaon Railway Yard, challenged the detention and proposed 200% penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the AGST Act initiated solely against the transporter without issuing any notice to the petitioner-consignee, the Court observed that the petitioner-consignee ought to have been given the opportunity to explain that the goods were neither undervalued nor underweight, directed the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh SCN to the petitioner within 15 days on the lines of the original notice dated 18.05.2023, and permitted the petitioner to file a reply and seek adjudication in accordance with law. Load more
