GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Dismissed Shruti Bansal v Gurudev Sales Corporation 2026-juristway.com-3160-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 28 October 2026 In Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh v. M/s Gurudev Sales Corporation, 2026-juristway.com-3160-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where the Department appealed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 14.05.2024 upholding a refund of Rs. 26,68,324 of ITC on exports without payment of tax for April to October 2022, contending that FOB value of Rs. 74,724 under three shipping bills dated 01.11.2022 fell outside the refund period and should be excluded from the turnover of zero-rated supply (Paras 1, 3-4), the Tribunal followed its decision in Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (Paras 6-7). It held that the invoices were issued within the relevant period and the goods were admittedly exported, so the value was rightly included (Paras 8-10). Noting that under Section 112(3) and Rule 33(2) of the GSTAT Procedure Rules the Commissioner, and not the filing officer, is the appellant, it directed correction of the cause title and dismissed the appeal (Paras 2, 11). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Partly Allowed M/s. New Star Trading Company v Shri HC Verma, Addl. Comm. Appeals CGST & CX Appeal Allahabad, & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3159-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s New Star Trading Company v. Shri H.C. Verma, Additional Commissioner (Appeals), 2026-juristway.com-3159-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where ITC of Rs. 7,69,456 on purchases in 2017-18 and 2018-19 from M/s Raj Trade Link Corporation, Ghaziabad and M/s Diamond Enterprises, Bhopal was denied under Section 74, and the First Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty from Rs. 76,946 to Rs. 7,69,456, the appellant relied on invoices, e-way bills, weighment slips, ledgers and banking payments (Paras 1-3.9), the Tribunal, on RTO reports obtained at its direction, found that the vehicles shown were untraceable, lacked permits, insurance or fitness, had been sold in 2012, or in one case could carry only 1,690 kg against 19,215 kg declared, and that both suppliers had been adjudicated non-existent (Paras 4.2-4.6). Following Ecom Gill Coffee Trading and Malik Traders, it held that goods had not moved, that Section 16(2)(b) was not satisfied, and that the appellant had not discharged its burden under Section 155 (Paras 4.7-5.4.1). Finding, however, that Section 122 penalty had been imposed alongside Section 74 without reasons and, in first appeal, enhanced without hearing, contrary to Section 75(13), it set aside the penalties and remanded their redetermination, otherwise rejecting the appeal (Para 5.5, Order). GSTAT · Varanasi ● Allowed Ankit Traders v Commissioner State Tax & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3158-GSTAT(Varanasi)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Ankit Traders v. Commissioner, State Tax, 2026-juristway.com-3158-GSTAT(Varanasi)-GST , where areca nuts moving from a supplier in Purbo Kitterbond, Assam to the appellant in Kanpur under e-invoices and e-way bills were intercepted on 03.02.2024 because the transporter’s goods receipts and the driver’s statement showed Kolkata as the place of dispatch, and a penalty of Rs. 1,60,216 imposed on 05.02.2024 was upheld in first appeal, the appellant explaining that the goods had moved by rail to Kolkata and thence by road (Paras 1-8), the Tribunal found that both consignments were accounted for in returns, reflected in GSTR-2A, and taxed in Uttar Pradesh (Paras 11, 22). Following K.S. Traders, Jindal Pipes, Saumya and Sangeeta Jain, it held that a technical mismatch in the place of dispatch without intent to evade does not attract Section 129 (Paras 17-22). The orders were quashed and refund of any penalty paid directed (Para 23). HC · Allahabad ● Dismissed M/s Kushwaha Etta and Building Material Suppliar v State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026-juristway.com-3157-HC(Allahabad)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Kushwaha Etta and Building Material Suppliar v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3157-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a building material dealer that had received Rs. 12,01,725 for works for Nagar Panchayat Kabrai, subject to TDS, suffered an ex parte order under Section 74(9) dated 02.09.2022 and a penalty of Rs. 1,44,207, its appeal being rejected on 09.12.2024, and contended that the case involved no fraud or mens rea and that the tax had since been paid (Paras 4-5, 9, 12), the court noted from the memorandum of appeal that the tax had been deposited and the delay attributed to the dealer’s accountant (Para 12). Holding that, the quantum being undisputed, non-payment within time attracts penalty and interest, and that the petition filed on 05.09.2026, about two years after the appellate order, reflected a lack of diligence, the court dismissed the petition (Paras 13-14). HC · Bombay ● Allowed Roadway Solutions India Infra. Ltd. v The State of Maharashtra, The Commissioner of State Tax, Mumbai, The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Mazgaon 2026-juristway.com-3156-HC(Bombay)-GST 27 October 2026 In Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2026-juristway.com-3156-HC(Bombay)-GST , where a highway contractor that had paid all the tax for 2023-24 to 2025-26, though belatedly, appealed to the Tribunal against interest confirmed under Section 50 and upheld in first appeal on 13.07.2026, and the Department nonetheless issued recovery intimations and notices dated 29.09.2026 to five banks under Section 79(1)(c) for Rs. 22,12,15,180, contending that interest on admitted self-assessed tax is recoverable under Section 75(12) without adjudication and that an appeal on interest alone is not maintainable (Paras 2-8, 12-34), the court held that Sections 107(6) and 112(8) prescribe a percentage pre-deposit only on disputed tax and penalty, not on disputed interest where the tax has been paid, and noted that both appellate forums had admitted the appeals without such deposit (Paras 41-47). Holding the recovery to be in the teeth of the deemed stay under Section 112(9), it quashed the intimations and bank notices insofar as they covered the interest under appeal, declared recovery stayed until disposal of the appeals, and directed withdrawal of the bank notices and lifting of debit restrictions, keeping the merits and the refund claim open (Paras 47-51). HC · Delhi ● Allowed M/s. Sikka Motors Pvt Ltd. v Union of India & Anr. 2026-juristway.com-3155-HC(Delhi)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Sikka Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3155-HC(Delhi)-GST , where a Section 73 notice for 2019-20 concerning ITC from cancelled and non-filing suppliers, late fee and interest — required, with the order deadline extended to 31.08.2024 by Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, to be issued by 31.05.2024 — was made available on the portal only on 08.08.2024 and confirmed by order dated 23.08.2024, and the Revenue contended that it had been generated on the AIO system on 30.05.2024 and re-uploaded only because of a migration glitch (Paras 1-6, 14), the court held that an entry shown as “awaiting GSTN confirmation” without a CRN had never been issued, that the re-issue acknowledged the earlier notice was ineffective, that only a notification under Section 168A can extend limitation, and that the Department had made no attempt to serve the notice by any other mode under Section 169 (Paras 15-20). It further held that ASMT-10 and personal hearings cannot substitute for a timely notice (Paras 21-23). The notice and the order were quashed (Paras 24-26). HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Ajanta Hardware v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3154-HC(Allahabad)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Ajanta Hardware v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3154-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a penalty order dated 16.04.2025 under Section 129(3), passed after interception of 70 water storage tanks moving under an invoice dated 13.04.2025, was appealed with a delay of 289 days on the ground that the dealer’s former accountant had not advised him of the limitation, and the appellate authority rejected the appeal on 23.05.2026 holding that it had no power to condone delay beyond Section 107(4) (Paras 5, 11-12), the court held that the grounds for condonation had been brushed aside and that an appellant is entitled to have them considered, whether tenable or not (Paras 13-14). With the State’s consent to a decision on merits upon costs, it set aside the appellate order, condoned the delay, restored the appeal, and directed its decision within three months subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000 by 06.11.2026, without expressing any view on merits (Paras 15-18). GSTAT · Hyderabad ● Allowed Kedia Agro v Principal Commissioner Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3153-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Kedia Agro v. Principal Commissioner, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, 2026-juristway.com-3153-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST , where an edible oil manufacturer’s claim of Rs. 61,47,671 for ITC accumulated on account of inverted duty structure from May 2020 to March 2021, filed on 25.03.2023 after withdrawal of an earlier application dated 18.06.2022, was rejected on 23.05.2023 and in first appeal by applying Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) read with Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST, and the Revenue contended that the withdrawn application left the claim subject to the restriction in force when the fresh application was filed (Paras 1-3, 7), the Tribunal held that the notification operates prospectively from 18.07.2022 and that the circular’s restriction by date of application had been struck down in Gemini Edibles, against which the Revenue’s special leave petitions were dismissed on 09.05.2025, and followed by the Gujarat, Rajasthan, Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts (Paras 9-10.5, 11). Finding that the rejection rested solely on that restriction, that the fresh claim was within two years, and that no evidence of any review petition had been produced, it set aside both orders and directed fresh adjudication of the refund, including the claim for interest, in accordance with law (Paras 11-12.2). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded Ashish Kumar Srivastava v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3141-HC(Allahabad)-GST 27 October 2026 In Ashish Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3141-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a show cause notice dated 11.01.2024 for 2018-19 proposed tax of Rs. 4,29,065 and penalty of Rs. 42,907, but the order dated 29.04.2024 under Section 73 confirmed tax of Rs. 5,47,000 and penalty of Rs. 54,700, the court held that the order, confirming a demand in excess of that proposed, violated the mandatory bar in Section 75(7) and was without jurisdiction (Paras 2-4). The order was set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh order after hearing, preferably within three months, on the petitioner’s undertaking not to seek undue adjournments (Paras 5-6). GSTAT · Ghaziabad ● Allowed M/s. Fiberhome India Private Limited v Lalit Mishra, Additional Commissioner, Noida & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3140-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Fiberhome India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lalit Mishra, Additional Commissioner, Noida, 2026-juristway.com-3140-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST , where the appellant had paid IGST through its credit ledger in 2017-18 on supplies to BSNL later found to be intra-State, paid CGST and SGST of Rs. 1,25,21,480 each through DRC-03 dated 04.02.2020, and recredited Rs. 2,50,42,960 as IGST in its GSTR-3B for February 2020, and a Section 73 demand of that amount with interest of Rs. 1,84,06,576 and penalty of Rs. 25,04,296 was upheld in first appeal (Paras 1-5), the Tribunal held that the notice, which reproduced Section 16(2) without identifying the condition said to have failed, and the non-speaking orders that followed, could not sustain the demand on grounds never disclosed (Paras 13-28). Holding that the mistaken IGST payment does not make the recredit eligible ITC, it nevertheless held that payments under the correct heads cannot be ignored, that the entitlement to refund under Section 19(1) of the IGST Act was substantially undisputed, and that Section 77(2) of the CGST Act excludes interest (Paras 29-43). The demand, interest and penalty were set aside, the DRC-03 payments directed to be recognised, and the authority directed to reconcile the original IGST payment with the recredit, without any duplicate refund or credit (Paras 44.1-44.3). HC · Allahabad ● Allowed Amrinder Singh Alang v Union of India 2026-juristway.com-3152-HC(Allahabad)-GST 26 October 2026 In Amrinder Singh Alang v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3152-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a businessman on bail since 30.01.2021 in Case No. 232 of 2019 under Section 132(1)(b), (c) and (i) before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut sought modification of the condition requiring deposit of his passport and prior permission for each foreign trip, having travelled abroad five times with leave and redeposited the passport each time, and the CGST Department opposed but filed no counter affidavit despite three opportunities (Paras 2-6), the court relied on Nikunj v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3192-3194 of 2024) (Para 3). The requirement of passport deposit was dispensed with, and the condition was modified to require the applicant to inform the trial court of the schedule of any foreign visit thirty days in advance and to report his return in writing (Para 7). HC · Allahabad ● Dismissed Aniket Gupta v Union of India and 4 Others 2026-juristway.com-3151-HC(Allahabad)-GST 26 October 2026 In Aniket Gupta v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3151-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where an advocate sought, by way of public interest litigation, to question the 2017 notifications taxing online legal research and legal educational database services under SAC 998431 of heading 9984 at 18% without a distinct classification or concessional rate, contending that such tools are a professional necessity to verify judgments rather than a luxury (Paras 1-2), the court noted that the petition did not disclose what prompted the challenge to a rate in force since 2017 by a petitioner enrolled in 2020 (Paras 3-4). Holding that the sudden awareness of the alleged unreasonableness could not be countenanced, the court dismissed the petition (Para 4). HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Aarna Enterprises v Additional Commissioner and Another 2026-juristway.com-3150-HC(Allahabad)-GST 26 October 2026 In M/s Aarna Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner, 2026-juristway.com-3150-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where an ex parte order dated 23.07.2024 under Section 73 imposed tax of Rs. 5,56,892, interest of Rs. 4,17,668 and penalty of Rs. 55,688, and the appeal filed on 18.03.2025 with a delay of 148 days — explained on the ground that the e-mail registered on the portal belonged to a former accountant — was rejected on 05.05.2025 solely on limitation (Paras 6, 11-12), the court held that none of the grounds for condonation had been considered and that an appellant is entitled to have them examined one way or the other (Para 13). Recording the State’s consent to a decision on merits upon conditions, it set aside the appellate order, condoned the delay and directed the appeal to be decided within three months, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000 deposited in the electronic ledger by 06.11.2026, with the protection to lapse on default or unnecessary adjournments (Para 13). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed Shyam Vir Singh v M/s. Pitambara Enterprises 2026-juristway.com-3149-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 24 October 2026 In Shyam Vir Singh v. M/s Pitambara Enterprises, 2026-juristway.com-3149-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the Department appealed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 28.03.2024 setting aside a penalty of Rs. 2,12,400 imposed under Section 129(3) on a consignment of iron scrap intercepted on 31.10.2023, on the basis of the driver’s statement that the goods were loaded from an undeclared warehouse at Puraniya, Lucknow and field reports that the declared premises and the weighbridge were non-operational (Paras 1.2-1.7, 4.2), the Tribunal found that Form GST MOV-04 recorded no discrepancy in description, quantity, weight or value, that the Talkatora Road premises had been approved as an additional place of business on 24.09.2023, and that the weighbridge held a Legal Metrology calibration certificate dated 19.09.2023 (Paras 4.4, 4.6). It held that a driver’s statement recorded without opportunity of cross-examination cannot override certified registration records, that the Department led no objective evidence for its field allegations, and that intent to evade is a prerequisite for penalty under Section 129(3), distinguishing Patanjali Ayurved (Paras 4.5-4.9). The appeal was dismissed and the Order-in-Appeal upheld. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed Sanjeev Kumar Niranjan v M/s. Time Steels 2026-juristway.com-3139-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 24 October 2026 In Sanjeev Kumar Niranjan v. M/s Time Steels, 2026-juristway.com-3139-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the Revenue challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 13.04.2022 setting aside confiscation under Section 130 and tax, penalty and redemption fine of Rs. 63,000 each (Rs. 1,89,000 in all), imposed after an SIB survey on 20.03.2018 found stock of M.S. wire and flats not reflected in the running ledger, the Tribunal found that the entries existed in the books, that an invoice dated 19.03.2018 for 9.56 MT preceded the survey and was reported in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and that the delay arose from the accountant’s leave from 18.03.2018 to 20.03.2018 (Paras 1.1-1.3, 5.3-5.4). It held that a delayed entry of a genuine transaction is not an unaccounted transaction, noted that the stock had been estimated by eye rather than weighed, and held that the Department, having accepted most of the explanation in parallel Section 74 proceedings that reduced the variance to 1.750 MT, could not treat the same stock as confiscable (Paras 5.4-5.6). The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed (Para 5.7). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3138-HC(Allahabad)-GST 23 October 2026 In M/s Barnala Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3138-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged an order dated 03.09.2025 for 2023-24 on a show cause notice dated 02.01.2025 under Section 74, contending that the notice lacked jurisdiction and that no hearing was granted after its reply dated 29.03.2025 requesting a date (Paras 2-5), the court declined to examine the jurisdictional challenge in writ, since the petitioner had participated and not challenged the notice for ten months, and held that Godrej Sara Lee does not require intervention wherever lack of jurisdiction is alleged (Paras 6-9). However, noting that the proceedings remained pending for seven months with no further notice or date of hearing, contrary to the scheme of Section 75(5), the court held that reasonable opportunity was denied, set aside the order, and directed a fresh order that also deals with the objection on lack of jurisdiction under Section 74 (Paras 10-14). HC · Gujarat ● Allowed Panila Chem Limited & Anr. v State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3121-HC(Gujarat)-GST 23 October 2026 In Panila Chem Limited & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3121-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where the appellate authority allowed the appeal against Section 129 detention on 28.02.2022 directing refund of ₹5,41,032/-, the physical copy was received on 08.03.2022 but the APL-04 summary was uploaded on the portal only on 03.06.2024 following departmental instructions, and the refund application filed on 04.06.2024 was rejected as time-barred, the Court held that (i) the relevant date under Explanation 2(d) to Section 54 is ordinarily the date of communication of the order and the petitioner could have filed offline, (ii) however, in the peculiar circumstances where the APL-04 delay was attributable to the department and the petitioner filed the very next day, procedural law must serve justice not obstruct it (Sambhaji, SC), (iii) continued retention violates Articles 265 and 300A and would indirectly revive the quashed demand, (iv) directed refund with 6% interest from 15.08.2024 within 12 weeks, failing which 9% interest applies. HC · Gujarat ● Dismissed Hubergroup India Private Limited v Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3120-HC(Gujarat)-GST 23 October 2026 In Hubergroup India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3120-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where the petitioner, a manufacturer of pigments and printing ink, challenged the audit report dated 02.08.2024 and eight SCNs under Section 74 contending the audit for FY 2017-18 to 2019-20 was time-barred as documents were furnished by 09.08.2022 and three ADT-01 notices were issued, the Court held that the Explanation to Section 65(4) determines commencement of audit as the later of documents being made available or actual institution at the place of business, that the audit was actually instituted at the place of business on 19.06.2024 and the report issued on 02.08.2024 was within three months, but observed that where documents remain outstanding the authorities must inform the registered person of missing documents within a reasonable time, and dismissed the petition with liberty to reply and appeal. GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Other DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v Candeur Constructions 2026-juristway.com-3119-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 23 October 2026 In DGAP v. Candeur Constructions, 2026-juristway.com-3119-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where the DGAP found profiteering in the 'Candeur Carlisle' project (Bengaluru) developed under a Joint Development Agreement with Kamani Tubes Limited, with the ITC-to-purchase-value ratio increasing from 6.66% (pre-GST) to 8.36% (post-GST), and the respondent contended the project commenced only post-GST and the methodology was flawed under Reckitt Benckiser (Delhi HC), the Tribunal held that (i) the DGAP's purchase-value-based methodology is materially different from the ITC-to-turnover methodology rejected in Reckitt Benckiser and is aligned with LICHFL Care Homes (Delhi HC), (ii) pre-GST credit and purchase data from the respondent's own certified ST-3 and VAT returns cannot be disregarded merely because the Commencement Certificate was post-GST, (iii) the revised profiteered amount of ₹1,63,22,724/- (base ₹1,45,73,861/- plus 12% GST) is accepted, and directed the respondent to pass on the benefit to 188 eligible homebuyers with 18% interest from the date of collection. HC · Allahabad ● Bail Granted Vinay Singh v Union of India 2026-juristway.com-3148-HC(Allahabad)-GST 22 October 2026 In Vinay Singh v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3148-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the applicant, an advocate who had filed GST returns for M/s Dream Industries and other firms allegedly created to pass about Rs. 73 crore of ITC on fake invoices, had been in custody since 05.12.2025 in Case No. 4655 of 2025 under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (e) and (i) of the CGST Act, and claimed no involvement beyond filing returns, the court noted that the CGST Department did not dispute the factual matrix, that the complaint stood filed before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Meerut with no charge shown to have been framed, and that the applicant had no criminal history (Paras 2-3, 12). Applying Sanjay Chandra, Atul Mehra, Vineet Jain, Ratnambar Kaushik and Manish Sisodia, it held that no exceptional circumstance or risk of tampering or flight was shown (Paras 6-16). Bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions including non-tampering, appearance before the trial court and no travel abroad without permission (Para 18). HC · Allahabad ● Bail Granted Subhash Gupta v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3127-HC(Allahabad)-GST 22 October 2026 In Subhash Gupta v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3127-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the applicant, not named in FIR No. 0323 of 2026 (Police Station Anwala, District Bareilly) under Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS read with Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act for passing ITC without inward supply, was implicated only through a co-accused’s confessional statement and had been in custody since 11.09.2026, the court noted that the GST Department could not dispute these submissions, that the complaint stood filed before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Meerut, with no charge shown to have been framed, and that the applicant had no criminal history (Paras 2-3, 12). Applying Sanjay Chandra, Atul Mehra, Vineet Jain, Ratnambar Kaushik and Manish Sisodia, the court held that no exceptional circumstance, risk of tampering or likelihood of flight had been shown to justify continued detention (Paras 6-16). Bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including non-tampering, appearance before the trial court and no travel abroad without permission (Para 18). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed Ajit Kumar Minz v M/s. B.L. Agro Industries Limited 2026-juristway.com-3126-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 22 October 2026 In Ajit Kumar Minz v. M/s B.L. Agro Industries Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3126-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where an edible-oil manufacturer had reversed ITC of Rs. 14.35 crore in its GSTR-3B for August 2018 after an Income Tax search reported a stock shortage, informing the Department by letter dated 08.10.2018 that the reversal was provisional, and the Department appealed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 02.09.2025 directing refund by credit to the electronic credit ledger, the Tribunal held that the reversal, disclosed in Table 4(B)(2) and not as output liability in Table 3.1, was not an admitted tax liability (Paras 5.4-5.9). It further held that pendency of investigation is not a determination of liability, that the Order-in-Original dated 23.12.2025 confirming a demand of Rs. 14.36 crore — passed after the impugned order and under appeal — could not be used to treat the 2018 reversal as payment towards it, and that rejection could not be sustained on grounds beyond the show cause notice (Paras 5.11-5.18, 5.25, 5.31-5.33). The Department’s appeal was dismissed, subject to verification of the claim under Section 54 (Paras 5.35, 6.1). GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Other DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v Savaliya Procon 2026-juristway.com-3112-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 22 October 2026 In DGAP v. Savaliya Procon, 2026-juristway.com-3112-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where the proceedings arose from a complaint under Rule 128 alleging profiteering in the 'Krish Elite' project (401 units), the DGAP after re-investigation (following the CCI remand in light of Reckitt Benckiser (Delhi HC)) found that out of 401 units, 175 units booked before BU Permission were relevant for investigation, that the ITC-to-purchase ratio decreased from 6.55% (pre-GST) to 5.77% (post-GST), and both parties accepted the DGAP findings, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP report and closed the proceedings. GSTAT · Thane ● Remanded M/s. Trivesh Enterprises LLP v Vijay Eknath Kumbhar, The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Thane/kalyan GST Department 2026-juristway.com-3111-GSTAT(Thane)-GST 22 October 2026 In M/s. Trivesh Enterprises LLP v. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Thane/Kalyan, 2026-juristway.com-3111-GSTAT(Thane)-GST , where a works contractor challenged denial of ITC of ₹4,89,456/- (FY 2020-21) and ₹6,80,142/- (FY 2021-22) on purchases from suppliers subsequently categorised as NGTPs with ab initio registration cancellation, the Tribunal found that the SCNs under the 'Brief Facts' and 'Grounds' sections contained only 'AS PER ATTACHMENT' without substantive reasoning, the OIO was a single-line disposal, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal concurrently on merits and for 'non-prosecution' despite written submissions and documentary evidence on record, held that dismissal for non-prosecution is legally unsustainable under Section 107(11)/(12) following Purushottam Stores (Patna HC) and CIT v. Premkumar Luthra (Bombay HC), and remanded for de novo adjudication. GSTAT · Thane ● Remanded Vikram Inderjit Kapur Director, M/s. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. v Rajesh Chandrakant Vishe The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur 2026-juristway.com-3110-GSTAT(Thane)-GST 22 October 2026 In Vikram Inderjit Kapur v. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur, 2026-juristway.com-3110-GSTAT(Thane)-GST , where a 100% EOU manufacturing absorbent cotton challenged partial rejection of 39 refund claims (June 2019 to September 2022) for 'Mismatch of ITC' where the Adjudicating Authority directly issued RFD-06 without issuing the mandatory RFD-08 notice or affording hearing, the Tribunal held that Rule 92(3) with its proviso is mandatory (use of 'shall' and absolute embargo), that a foundational procedural defect cannot be cured by merely affording hearing at the appellate stage, that the Appellate Authority ought to have remanded instead of demanding documents and deciding on merits, and remanded all 39 matters for de novo processing with directions for strict compliance with Rule 92(3). Load more
