HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s V.K. Traders v State of U.P. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2898-HC(Allahabad)-GST 12 October 2026 In M/s V.K. Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026-juristway.com-2898-HC(Allahabad)-GST , the petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Act for the financial year 2018-19. The show cause notice dated 27.01.2024 proposed a tax demand of Rs. 27,51,120/- and penalty of Rs. 0 (zero). The adjudication order, however, confirmed the tax demand as proposed but additionally imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,75,112/- — an amount never proposed in the notice. The court held that Section 75(7) is mandatory and absolutely forbids the adjudicating authority from confirming any demand in excess of the amount proposed. The order was set aside and the matter was remitted with directions to pass a fresh order after granting due opportunity of hearing, within three months. HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s S.S. Construction Co. Thru. Authorized Representative Akash Singh v State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2897-HC(Allahabad)-GST 09 October 2026 In M/s S.S. Construction Co. v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026-juristway.com-2897-HC(Allahabad)-GST , the petitioner challenged a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act for the period April 2020 to March 2021 on the ground that it neither contained nor pleaded the necessary ingredients of Section 74. During the pendency of the writ petition, an amended show cause notice dated 03.10.2026 was issued under Section 74, incorporating the allegation of suppression. The court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice as amended within two weeks, and directed the authority to grant a hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, reserving the petitioner’s liberty to raise all questions of law including jurisdiction. SC ● Dismissed The Joint Commissioner of Central Taxes & Ors. v M/s. Krishna Sai Granites India Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2888-SC-GST 09 October 2026 In “The Joint Commissioner of Central Taxes v. M/s. Krishna Sai Granites India Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) Diary No. 37000/2026” , the Supreme Court (J.B. Pardiwala & K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.) dismissed the Revenue’s SLP after condoning delay, finding no good ground to interfere with the common impugned orders of the High Court in WP No. 8499/2024 and WP No. 8500/2024. HC · Gauhati ● Other Smti Gollo Sarah v The Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Arunachal Pradesh, The Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax Arunachal Pradesh 2026-juristway.com-2887-HC(Gauhati)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Smti Gollo Sarah v. Union of India, WP(C)/506/2026” , where the petitioner (proprietor of M/s Sml Builders and Company, Itanagar, GSTIN: 12LWLPS8186F1ZS) could not apply for revocation of GST registration cancellation (cancelled w.e.f. 15.10.2025 for non-filing of returns) as both the Section 30 limitation period and the additional 180 days had expired, the Court — following Gangte Togung (WP(C) No. 380/2026, decided 11.08.2026) and with the Revenue’s consent — directed the Department to intimate outstanding dues and upon payment within 21 days, restore the registration. HC · Delhi ● Other Om Shankar Metal (Through its Proprietor Mr. Sidhant Sharma) v Assistant Commissioner Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate Division Delhi East Delhi CBIC 2026-juristway.com-2886-HC(Delhi)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Om Shankar Metal v. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.(C) 15708/2025” , where the petitioner challenged the ex parte order dated 31.01.2025 under Section 74 claiming non-receipt of personal hearing, and the Respondent produced only its dispatch register (not email communication or postal receipt), the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, holding that the disputed factual question of service of hearing notice should be determined by the Appellate Authority, that the penalty at 100% was confirmed without considering Sections 74(5)-(7) or recording specific findings of fraud/suppression, but these are matters for the Appellate Authority, and granted liberty to file appeal with Section 14 Limitation Act exclusion application. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Spandan Electrical v Debabrata Paul, Deputy Commissioner, Srirampur & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2885-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Spandan Electrical v. Debabrata Paul, APL/90/KLK/2026” , where the electrical goods trader challenged the demand of Rs. 3,57,048.18 (tax) plus interest Rs. 4,30,678.93 and penalty Rs. 8,76,998 under Section 74 for FY 2017-18, contending that the identified bank entries were advance receipts from customers without corresponding supply, the Tribunal set aside the FAA’s order for failing to comply with Section 107(12) — no points for determination stated, no reasons recorded, no consideration of the Appellant’s defence — and remanded the matter for fresh hearing and reasoned order within six months. CESTAT · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Victora Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Noida 2026-juristway.com-2884-CESTAT(Allahabad)-GST 09 October 2026 In “M/s Victora Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Noida, ST Appeal No. 21185 of 2018” , where the Appellant’s refund claim of service tax/CENVAT credit was rejected, the CESTAT allowed the appeal following the Larger Bench decision in Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt. Ltd. and subsequent decisions in Asiatic Drugs & Pharmaceuticals, Shakti Pumps, and Yokohama India, holding that refund of service tax paid is admissible in cash under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed M/s. Agrico Organics Ltd. v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka 2026-juristway.com-2883-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 09 October 2026 In “M/s. Agrico Organics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, APL/137/BUR/2026” , where the Appellant (a fertilizer manufacturer in Sindhanur, Karnataka) was denied ITC for July 2017-March 2018 under Section 73 for filing returns beyond the Section 16(4) deadline, the OIA confirmed the demand and bank attachment under Section 79(1)(c) was issued, the Tribunal — applying Section 16(5) retrospectively inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2017 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 (operationalised by Notification No. 17/2024-CT) — found that the Appellant’s returns for the relevant period were filed before 30.11.2021 (the extended deadline under Section 16(5)), set aside the entire demand, directed refund of the amount paid under protest, and ordered release of the bank account. GSTAT · Raipur ● Other Dev Enterprises v Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Dhamtari 2026-juristway.com-2882-GSTAT(Raipur)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Dev Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, APL/D2/RPR/2026” , where the Appellant sought to challenge an OIO dated 29.12.2023 passed under Section 73(9) directly before the GSTAT while the first appeal under Section 107 remained pending, the Tribunal rejected the filing as not maintainable under Section 112(1), holding that the statutory prerequisite of an order under Section 107 or 108 was absent, that filing Form GST APL-01 or pendency of the first appeal does not convert the OIO into a directly appealable order, and that this is a jurisdictional defect incapable of cure by amendment of pleadings or production of documents. GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed Saraswati Motors v Mohammad Yahiya Ansari, Add. Comm. Grade 2 Appeal, (Mobile Squad-3) Prayagraj & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2859-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Saraswati Motors v. Mohammad Yahiya Ansari, APL/6/ALB/2026” , where the Appellant, an authorised Hero MotoCorp dealer, transported six motorcycles valued at Rs. 4,05,138/- to M/s Prakash Motors on 23.11.2021 with a valid e-invoice (No. SM-MC/21-22/1924, carrying IRN, QR code, and individual engine/chassis numbers) but without an e-way bill, was intercepted, and penalty of Rs. 1,77,248/- was imposed under Section 129(3) with the SCN (MOV-07) and order (MOV-09) both issued within 57 minutes of interception without granting any hearing opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, holding that issuing an adverse order within 57 minutes without evaluating the appellant’s explanation violates Section 75(4) and renders the order a jurisdictional nullity, that demanding tax a second time for the same consignment amounts to unconstitutional double taxation, relying on Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC, 2024) and Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC, 2023), and granted liberty to the Department to proceed under Section 122 or Section 125 for the procedural documentation lapse. HC · Calcutta ● Allowed Mihir Kumar Biswas v Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Krishnanagar Charge & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2881-HC(Calcutta)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Mihir Kumar Biswas v. Asst. Commissioner of Revenue, WPA 27133 of 2026” , same pattern as cases 2864 and 2879 — SCN dated 22.12.2023 uploaded under “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, ex parte order dated 18.04.2024, appeal dismissed on limitation dated 07.07.2026, all quashed with direction to revisit on merits within 12 weeks. HC · Calcutta ● Allowed Sheela Foam Limited & Anr. v The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Shibpur Charge & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2880-HC(Calcutta)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Sheela Foam Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, WPA 27515 of 2026” , where the SCN dated 06.03.2025 under Section 74 and the adjudication order dated 04.08.2025 were uploaded only under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab with personal hearing fixed on the due date of reply, the Court quashed the order and directed fresh reasoned adjudication within 12 weeks after hearing. HC · Calcutta ● Allowed M/s. Vibrations & Ors. v The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Chandni Chawk & Princep Street Charge, & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2879-HC(Calcutta)-GST 08 October 2026 In “M/s. Vibrations & Ors. v. Asst. Commissioner of Revenue, WPA 12360 of 2025” , where the SCN dated 05.04.2023 was uploaded under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, the ex parte adjudication order dated 10.07.2023 and appellate order dated 11.12.2024 (dismissing the appeal on limitation) were passed, the Court quashed all orders and the SCN, directed fresh SCN within two weeks and fresh reasoned order within 12 weeks after hearing. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Ast Pipes Limited v Union of India and Another 2026-juristway.com-2878-HC(Allahabad)-GST 08 October 2026 In “M/s AST Pipes Limited v. Union of India, Writ Tax No. 3933 of 2026” , where the OIO dated 10.11.2023 under Section 74 confirmed tax of Rs. 3,17,414/-, penalty of Rs. 47,612/-, transitional credit demand of Rs. 3,25,972/- and equal penalty plus interest, but the DRC-07 showed tax demand of Rs. 6,43,386/- (a discrepancy), and the Adjudicating Authority rejected the Section 161 rectification application dated 10.09.2026, the Court set aside the rectification order and remitted the matter for fresh determination, holding that the discrepancy between the OIO and DRC-07 is an error apparent on the face of record under Section 161. GSTAT · Agra ● Remanded Jitendra Kumar v M/s. D.K. Enterprises, Proprietor 2026-juristway.com-2877-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Jitendra Kumar v. M/s. D.K. Enterprises, APL/219/AGR/2026” , where 81 e-way bills of the Respondent for FY 2020-21 were found cancelled and the Department proceeded under Section 73 on the premise that the cancellation indicated unrecorded outward supplies, the FAA set aside the demand for lack of verification, and the Department appealed, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Adjudicating Authority to verify from the GST/e-way bill portal whether the cancelled e-way bills were actually used for transportation, whether fresh e-way bills were generated, and to determine the actual tax liability after affording hearing. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Shailendra Kumar Singh v M/s. Vijay & Brothers, Proprietor 2026-juristway.com-2876-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Shailendra Kumar Singh v. M/s. Vijay & Brothers, APL/245/AGR/2026” , where the SIB inspected the Respondent’s gutka/pan masala trading premises on 10.10.2023 and found excess stock of Rs. 10,01,237/-, and the proper officer initiated proceedings under Section 130 imposing tax, penalty and fine, the Tribunal dismissed the Department’s appeal (filed only on the fine issue), holding that Section 130 cannot be invoked for stock discrepancies found during survey and the proper course is Section 73/74, following Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, Shri Om Steels, and V.K. Electricals (all Allahabad HC). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed The Pr. Commissioner CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v M/s. Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2875-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Pr. Commissioner CGST, Siliguri v. M/s Rajshahi Banijya Pvt. Ltd., APL/15 & 17/KLK/2026” , where the same respondent as in cases 2839/2840 claimed refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure for two subsequent periods (packing materials at 18% vs. packaged tea output at 5%), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, holding that ITC on packing materials is eligible for refund, that Circular No. 135/05/2020 applies only to rate reductions over time on the same goods (not to different inputs), that Circular No. 173/05/2022 is merely a clarification sharing the same fate, and that CBIC has no power under Section 168(1) to issue circulars in derogation of the Act, citing the Delhi High Court’s observation in the IOCL case. GSTAT · Cuttack ● Partly Allowed Manoranjan Dash v Commissionerate of CT GST, Commissioner, Odisha & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2874-GSTAT(Cuttack)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Manoranjan Dash v. Commissionerate of CT GST, APL/10/CTT/2026” , where M/s Mother Power House Limited, a works contractor, challenged the OIA upholding demand on unmatched ITC (claimed in GSTR-3B but not reflected in GSTR-2A) for multiple tax periods, the Tribunal confirmed the tax demand but remanded the interest computation for fresh determination strictly per Section 42(8) requiring invoice-level matching, deleted the interest levied on Rule 36(4) provisional ITC excess as being outside the scope of the SCN, and held that interest under Section 42(8) is mandatory and incidental to recovery regardless of whether proposed in the SCN. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Partly Allowed Pavithram Gold & Diamonds v The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Thiruvananthapuram 2026-juristway.com-2873-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Pavithram Gold & Diamonds v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, APL/38/TVP/2026” , where the jewellery retailer (GSTIN: 32ABKFM1298H1Z5) was issued SCN under Section 74 for non-disclosure of outward supplies discovered during audit and the Appellant contested only the penalty under Section 74 (not the tax and interest), the Tribunal — applying the Supreme Court’s ruling in GR Infra Projects Limited v. State of M.P. (Civil Appeal No. 11277 of 2026) — held that the SCN/OIO do not specify what information was required to be disclosed and under which provision, that the Revenue’s new arguments at the Tribunal stage cannot embellish the SCN, allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the penalty, and confirmed the interest liability. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Chelco Bind Grips v The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Thiruvananthapuram 2026-juristway.com-2872-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Chelco Bind Grips v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, APL/46/TVP/2026” , where M/s Chelco Bind Grips (manufacturer of screws/bolts under HSN 7318) was issued SCN under Section 74 for ITC reversal on account of non-reconciliation of GSTR-2A with GSTR-3B, and the FAA found that Section 74 was wrongly invoked (no suppression/fraud) but nonetheless upheld the demand under Section 74(1) and suo motu imposed penalty under Section 73(9) (a section not invoked in the SCN), the Tribunal set aside the OIA, holding that upholding a demand under Section 74(1) after negating the applicability of Section 74 is a classic case of non-application of mind, and imposing penalty under Section 73(9) without any charge in the SCN is dehors the scope of the notice and a nullity. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Sunil Steels v The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, Thiruvananthapuram 2026-juristway.com-2871-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Sunil Steels v. Commissioner of Keralam State GST, APL/14/TVP/2026” , where the Appellant mistakenly paid tax under CGST/SGST heads instead of IGST and the Department demanded the IGST shortfall under Section 73, the Tribunal — applying the Kerala High Court’s settled position — held that payment under the wrong head is not non-payment or short payment actionable under Section 73, allowed set-off of excess CGST/SGST credit against the IGST shortfall through the electronic credit ledger, but directed that any remaining amount of Rs. 15,049/- still due after set-off be recovered in cash with interest. GSTAT · Surat ● Dismissed The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Division-IX, Ankleshwar, Vadodara-II Commissionerate v Riddhi Pharma 2026-juristway.com-2870-GSTAT(Surat)-GST 08 October 2026 In “The Assistant Commissioner of CGST v. Riddhi Pharma, APL/57/SRT/2026” , where the Department demanded GST at 18% on assignment of GIDC leasehold rights by the unregistered Respondent (a pharmaceutical company), and the FAA allowed the Respondent’s appeal following Gujarat Chamber of Commerce, the Tribunal dismissed the Department’s appeal, holding that the transaction is not subject to GST, that the Respondent acted under bona fide confusion since even the Department itself sought to apply a contested classification, and that penal provisions cannot be invoked where there is scope for genuine doubt — citing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 841) that “penal provisions are meant to deter deliberate contravention and are not intended to penalize bona fide taxpayers.” GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Shailendra Kumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner v M/s. Amir Ali Khan & Bros., Farrukhabad., M/s. S.K Enterprises, Kaimganj., M/s. Janki International, Kaimganj. M/s. Subhash Chand Ashish Kumar, Krishan Kumar Agarwal & Brothers 2026-juristway.com-2869-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Shailendra Kumar Singh v. M/s. Amir Ali Khan & Bros. and Others, APL/72, 81, 140, 141 & 157/AGR/2026” , where five departmental appeals challenged FAA orders that set aside OIOs imposing tax, penalty and fine under Section 130 read with Section 122 on respondent-dealers (tobacco/pan masala traders) for excess/unaccounted stock found during survey, the Tribunal dismissed all five appeals, holding that Section 35(6) mandates determination of tax on unaccounted goods under Section 73/74 and not Section 130, following Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, Shri Om Steels, and V.K. Electricals (all Allahabad HC), and observed that the Commissioner directed these appeals “in a peripheral manner and without application of mind.” GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed M/s. Shri Kishan & Co. v DC 14, Dty Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2868-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 08 October 2026 In “M/s. Shri Kishan & Co. v. DC 14, APL/61/AGR/2026” , where the SIB searched the business premises on 27.11.2017, found copper/aluminium wire being unloaded from a tempo without any invoice, e-way bill or bilty, the driver could only show a transporter receipt, two manual invoices were produced more than three months later, and the Adjudicating Officer imposed tax of Rs. 2,54,956/- plus equal penalty (reduced by the FAA to Rs. 1,23,740/-), the Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that Section 68 read with Rule 138/138A mandates e-way bill generation before commencement of movement, manual invoices produced three months post-interception have no evidentiary credibility, and the concurrent findings rejecting the documents as an afterthought do not warrant interference. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Shilchar Technologies Limited v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Karnataka, Bangalore & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2858-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Shilchar Technologies Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Karnataka, APL/219/BUR/2026” , where the Appellant despatched 114 drums of transformer oil from Gujarat to Tamil Nadu under a delivery challan referencing Invoices No. 1195/1196/1208/1209/1207/1227/1228 on which tax was paid, the vehicle was intercepted at Managuli on 01.01.2022, and penalty was imposed under Section 129 confirmed by the Appellate Authority on grounds of description mismatch between the delivery challan and e-way bill and that goods could not be transported in batches, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, holding that the invoices showed tax was charged, the delivery challan’s statement referencing the invoices came to the Appellant’s aid, Rule 55(5) does not require submission of original invoices to the proper officer, item-wise invoices cannot by themselves establish that batch transportation is impermissible, and there was no intention to evade tax, relying on Merry Gold v. Union of India [(2024) 19 Centax 503 (Kar.)]. Load more
