HC · Delhi ● Dismissed Oyster Steel and Iron Private Limited v Assistant Commissioner Circle VII Group 61 Central Goods and Service Tax Audit I. 2026-juristway.com-3205-HC(Delhi)-GST 30 October 2026 In Oyster Steel and Iron Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Audit-I, 2026-juristway.com-3205-HC(Delhi)-GST , where the petitioner applied on 11.01.2020 for cancellation of registration from 31.12.2019, received an audit notice in Form GST ADT-01 dated 15.09.2022 for 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2021 while the application was pending, and, after obtaining an order in an earlier writ in which it did not disclose the notice, had its registration cancelled with effect from 31.12.2019 (Paras 2-10), the court held that an application for cancellation only suspends registration under Rule 21A, and that, read with Section 2(13), “registered person for such period” in Section 65 covers a person registered during the period audited, even if the registration is later cancelled retrospectively (Paras 17-31). Adopting the contextual approach in L.J. Victoria Properties, noting Ashoka Fabricast, and declining to follow Tvl. Raja Stores and paragraph 7.1.2 of the Model All India GST Audit Manual, 2023 to the extent contrary, it held that the audit period was not liable to be curtailed, while clarifying that the Department could not treat post-31.12.2019 returns as valid or assume any supply or liability for that period (Paras 32-38). Relief was additionally refused for non-disclosure of the notice in the earlier writ, and the petition was dismissed with the interim stay vacated (Paras 39-41). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Remanded The Dangarh MP Cass Limited v The State Tax Officer-Cum-Proper Officer, Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3204-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 30 October 2026 In The Dangarh MPCASS Ltd. v. State Tax Officer, 2026-juristway.com-3204-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where a cooperative society trading in cattle feed was assessed for 2019-20 to Rs. 1,96,466 on ITC reversal and a GSTR-1/GSTR-9 difference, its rectification application was rejected on 05.06.2025, and the appellate authority, taking up its appeals against both the assessment and the rectification rejection together, dismissed the latter on 10.12.2025 merely as multiplicity of litigation without any finding on the former (Paras 2, 5-6), the Tribunal held that every appeal must be disposed of under Section 107(11) by confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against, and that the appellate authority had neither decided the appeal against the assessment on merits nor dealt with the grounds challenging the rectification rejection (Paras 7-10). The order was quashed and the matter remitted to the appellate authority to decide both appeals afresh on the grounds raised (Paras 11-12). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Remanded The Dhanaula Co-Op Agri. Service Society Ltd Dhanaula v The State Tax Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3203-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 30 October 2026 In The Dhanaula Co-op. Agri. Service Society Ltd. v. State Tax Officer, 2026-juristway.com-3203-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where a cooperative society was assessed for 2019-20 to tax of Rs. 1,20,852, interest of Rs. 1,06,978 and penalty of Rs. 20,000 — Rs. 1,19,506 as ITC reversal on exempt supplies by proportion under Rules 42 and 43 and Rs. 1,346 on a GSTR-1/GSTR-9 difference — after its reply to the DRC-01A was ignored and its rectification application rejected, and the first appeal failed (Paras 2-6), the Tribunal held that reversal is required only if ITC is availed on goods or services used partly for exempt supplies, so none arises on cattle feed purchased at nil rate without credit unless common credit, such as on input services, is shown (Paras 7-10). It also noted that the annual return under Section 44 allows correction of figures in periodic returns (Para 11). With the consent of both sides, it quashed the order-in-appeal and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after verification and, if necessary, additional evidence (Paras 12-13). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Allowed Mittal Cutters & Allied Works (P) Ltd v Commissioner (Appeals) Office of The Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods and Services Tax Appeals Commissionerate Chandigarh. & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3202-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 30 October 2026 In Mittal Cutters & Allied Works (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh, 2026-juristway.com-3202-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where a demand of IGST of Rs. 36,93,185 for 2020-21 was raised on a DGARM comparison of tax as per 24 e-way bills shown against the appellant’s GSTIN with tax paid in GSTR-3B, and upheld in first appeal on the view that a registered job worker must itself generate e-way bills (Paras 3-6, 11-13), the Tribunal examined a sample trail — a principal’s delivery challan marked “for job work only”, the principal’s e-way bill for outward job work, the transporter’s note, the appellant’s invoice for job charges of Rs. 16,842 and the principal’s e-way bill for job work returns of Rs. 13,48,370 (Paras 14-15). It held that Rule 138 permits the registered person causing movement to generate the e-way bill, that the e-way bills here were generated by the principal for job work movements, and that the notice, based only on DGARM data, alleged no wrongdoing (Paras 16-21). Holding that tax cannot be demanded merely on e-way bill values without other evidence of evasion, it allowed the appeal and set aside the tax, interest and penalty (Paras 22-23). GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed M and S v Commercial Tax Officer Prayagraj Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3201-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 30 October 2026 In M/s M & S v. Commercial Tax Officer, Prayagraj, 2026-juristway.com-3201-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where a Section 73 demand of Rs. 64,566 for 2019-20, based on GSTR-1 tax of Rs. 1,40,754 against Rs. 76,188 paid in GSTR-3B, was upheld in first appeal on the footing that the appellant had admitted wrong B2C reporting and not amended it in the following year, the appellant explaining that it had re-reported the same supplies as B2B in the March 2020 GSTR-1 so that recipients could see the credit (Paras 2-7), the Tribunal directed production of GSTR-1 for the whole year, a statement of the affected supplies, the invoices and the March 2020 GSTR-3B, and on verification found the explanation correct (Paras 8.1-8.2). Holding that the rectification within the same financial year was permissible, it set aside the order-in-original dated 24.08.2024 and the order-in-appeal dated 19.03.2025, quashed the demand and directed refund of any amount recovered or deposited (Paras 9, Order). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Shekhar Basappa Wali v Shrinivasa Traders. 2026-juristway.com-3200-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 29 October 2026 In Shekhar Basappa Wali v. M/s Shrinivasa Traders, 2026-juristway.com-3200-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where an arecanut trader, found after searches to operate from an empty premises, had availed ITC of Rs. 4,28,42,308 from suppliers whose registrations were cancelled before the invoices and passed it to non-existent recipients using vehicle numbers of scooters and tankers, and the adjudicating authority, dropping the tax demand under Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST, imposed penalties under Section 122(1)(vii) and 122(1)(x), which the first appellate authority deleted (Paras 2-20), the Tribunal, proceeding in the respondent’s absence, held that the circular does not restrict penalties to Section 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii), and that the respondent’s contradictory statements and fake documents attracted Section 122(1)(x) (Paras 25-29). On Section 122(1)(vii), it held that statements under Section 70 bind the maker following Ganpati Overseas and Imtiaz Ahmed, distinguished Habib Uz Zaman, J.P. Iscon, Gargo Traders and CERA Boards, held the vehicle-number circular inapplicable where vehicles did not exist, and found that bank statements first produced in appeal were barred by Rule 112 (Paras 30-46). The appeal was allowed, the penalties restored, and the appropriation of Rs. 22,00,400 and bank attachments allowed to stand (Order). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Nagamangalamurthy Ganesh Kumar v Harji Engineering Works Private Limited, Managing Director 2026-juristway.com-3199-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 29 October 2026 In Nagamangalamurthy Ganesh Kumar v. Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3199-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where the respondent declared tax of Rs. 1,19,04,300 in GSTR-1 for March to November 2019 but filed no GSTR-3B until 07.10.2020, after cancellation of its registration on 20.11.2019, and an order dated 11.10.2021 under Section 76 confirmed the demand, appropriated Rs. 55,19,464 paid in cash, disallowed Rs. 63,84,836 debited from the credit ledger as time-barred under Section 16(4) and imposed an equal penalty, which the first appellate authority set aside on 20.06.2023 (Paras 2.1-2.7), the Tribunal proceeded ex parte after four notices and affixture (Para 5.2). It held that Section 76(1) is a non-obstante provision covering every person who collects an amount representing tax and does not pay it, that bank verification established receipt of over Rs. 3.24 crore from the recipient against the tax invoices, and that ITC debited through belated returns was time-barred under Section 16(4) (Paras 5.3-5.8). The Department’s appeal was allowed and the order-in-original restored in its entirety (Order). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v Pavitra Associates 2026-juristway.com-3189-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 29 October 2026 In Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v. M/s Pavitra Associates, 2026-juristway.com-3189-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a supplier of data entry and dietary food services to South Western Railway, Hubballi collected GST of Rs. 30,60,658 from April 2018 to September 2021 but short-declared turnover and stopped filing after its registration was cancelled on 01.11.2019, withholding Rs. 25,18,205, and an order dated 21.11.2022 under Section 76 confirmed that amount with interest and an equal penalty, the tax being paid by DRC-03 in 2023, and the first appellate authority on 08.03.2024 deleted the penalty (Paras 2-5), the Tribunal held that Section 76(1) applies to every person collecting an amount representing tax, regardless of registration, following R.K. Transport & Constructions, and that tax collected from recipients is held in a fiduciary capacity, as recognised in Solar Pesticides and Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal (Paras 17-23). Distinguishing GAIL (India), it held the appellate reading unsustainable (Paras 21, 27). The Department’s appeal was allowed and the penalty of Rs. 25,18,205 restored, payable within eight weeks after adjustment of pre-deposits (Order). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v K.M.B. Facility Management Services 2026-juristway.com-3188-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 29 October 2026 In Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v. K.M.B. Facility Management Services, 2026-juristway.com-3188-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a supplier of security, cleaning and maintenance services to South Western Railways had charged and collected GST from April 2018 to March 2021 but filed nil or no GSTR-3B, the shortfall being detected from the recipient’s GSTR-7, and after a notice dated 23.11.2021 under Section 76 paid Rs. 43,63,237 by DRC-03 in September 2022, and the first appellate authority deleted the Section 76 penalty on the view that the provision does not apply to registered suppliers (Paras 3-5), the Tribunal held that “every person” and “any amount” in Section 76(1) are of the widest amplitude and draw no distinction based on registration, following R.K. Transport & Constructions (Paras 16-17). Distinguishing GAIL (India) as concerning tax already deposited through another registration, and relying on the fiduciary character of tax collected from recipients recognised in Solar Pesticides, it held the deletion of penalty unsustainable (Paras 18-20). The Department’s appeal was allowed and the penalty equal to the tax restored, to be paid within eight weeks after adjustment of pre-deposits (Order). GSTAT · Pune ● Dismissed M/s. Indermal Aidanmal Oswal v The Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune-II 2026-juristway.com-3187-GSTAT(Pune)-GST 29 October 2026 In M/s Indermal Aidanmal Oswal v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune-II, 2026-juristway.com-3187-GSTAT(Pune)-GST , where, after an audit, a Section 73 order confirmed ITC of Rs. 31,115 on invoices of a supplier whose registration was cancelled retrospectively, and interest of Rs. 3,80,408 on ITC relating to 2018-19 supplies not paid for within 180 days, with the penalty reduced in first appeal to Rs. 20,000 (Paras 2-7), the Tribunal held that the appellant, producing no invoice, payment proof or transport evidence, had not discharged its burden under Section 155 on the ITC, which it had in any event paid by DRC-03 (Paras 14-17). On interest, it held that the amended provisions quoted below did not govern 2018-19, but that under the second proviso to Section 16(2) and Rule 37 as then in force, the liability with interest arose from the Act itself; the non-operation of GSTR-2 affected only reporting; a recipient cannot escape interest by not reversing the credit; and eventual payment to suppliers only permits re-availment under the third proviso (Paras 18-26). The penalty of Rs. 10,000 under each of the Central and State Acts, totalling Rs. 20,000 as IGST, was upheld, and the appeal dismissed with directions to quantify interest on tax and adjust the pre-deposit and DRC-03 payment (Paras 27-30). GSTAT · Pune ● Dismissed M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited v The Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra 2026-juristway.com-3186-GSTAT(Pune)-GST 29 October 2026 In M/s Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra, 2026-juristway.com-3186-GSTAT(Pune)-GST , where the appellant, having charged GST at 12% instead of the concessional 5% on a canned motor pump supplied to the Department of Atomic Energy under an invoice dated 16.03.2018 and paid through GSTR-3B filed on 22.04.2018, discovered the error in 2024-25 and sought refund of Rs. 91,00,000 on 04.07.2025, which was rejected and upheld in first appeal as time-barred (Paras 2-8), the Tribunal held that the relevant date under the residuary clause of the Explanation to Section 54 is the date of payment, 22.04.2018, and that Section 54 does not provide for limitation to run from discovery of a mistake (Paras 19-24). Distinguishing Mafatlal Industries, Rajendra Narayan Mohanty and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation as recognising the writ remedy, and following the Karnataka Division Bench in Merck Life Science, which reversed the Single Judge’s view that the limit is directory, it held that no statutory authority can sanction a refund filed beyond two years, leaving the appellant to Article 226 (Paras 25-37). The appeal was dismissed and the unjust enrichment question not reached (Paras 38-39). GSTAT · Cuttack ● Partly Allowed Sanjeeb Kumar Dehuri v Mukesh Kumar Kakani 2026-juristway.com-3185-GSTAT(Cuttack)-GST 29 October 2026 In Sanjeeb Kumar Dehuri v. Mukesh Kumar Kakani, 2026-juristway.com-3185-GSTAT(Cuttack)-GST , where the Department sought restoration of a Section 74 demand against a retailer of FMCG goods that had not filed returns from August 2017 to February 2018 until anti-evasion officers visited on 19.04.2018, after which it filed all returns discharging Rs. 73,58,992 — 98.7% through ITC — having deposited the cash estimate on 31.03.2018 before the visit, and the first appellate authority had held Section 74 inapplicable and reduced the penalty to Rs. 7,35,900 under Section 73(9) (Paras 4-6), the Tribunal noted that no notice under Section 46 or best judgment proceeding had preceded the inspection, and that the Section 74 proceeding of 27.12.2022 sought tax already paid (Para 9). It held that Explanation 2 to Section 74 addresses non-declaration in a return or document furnished, that the taxpayer’s pre-visit deposit and payment of interest showed no intent to withhold, and that Section 74 could not be invoked (Paras 9-10.4). The appellate finding on Section 74 was upheld, but its modification of the penalty was set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to determine liability, if any, under Section 73, subject to the statutory limit (Para 10.5). GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed M/s. Sarthak Traders v Commissioner Uttar Prades State Tax, Grade -2 (Appeal) Prayagraj & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3184-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 29 October 2026 In M/s Sarthak Traders v. Commissioner, U.P. State Tax, Grade-2 (Appeal), Prayagraj, 2026-juristway.com-3184-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where an ex parte order dated 16.08.2024 confirmed, among other things, ITC of Rs. 1,92,949.93 for 2019-20 as excess over GSTR-2A, and the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 06.02.2025 without dealing with the plea that the excess was unavailed 2018-19 credit, relying on Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST to require CA or supplier certificates (Paras 1-11), the Tribunal held that under Section 107(12), as explained in Archita Tour and Travels, the appellate authority had to decide the grounds raised even in the appellant’s absence (Paras 13-18). Choosing to decide on merits, it held that GSTR-2A is a facilitation tool and Section 16(2)(aa) operates only from 01.01.2022, that the circular did not apply as no supplier default existed, and, on invoice-wise verification it directed and undertook, that the excess was 2018-19 credit availed in April and July 2019 within the permitted time (Paras 19-29). The ITC demand with interest and penalty was quashed, the accepted output tax of Rs. 7,572.44 left undisturbed, and refund of the pre-deposit with interest under Section 115 directed (Para 30). HC · Uttarakhand ● Other M/s. Kotdwar Steel Limited v Office of The Deputy Commissioner & Another 2026-juristway.com-3198-HC(Uttarakhand)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Kotdwar Steel Ltd. v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner, 2026-juristway.com-3198-HC(Uttarakhand)-GST , where a registered taxpayer sought directions to remove negative blocks placed on its electronic credit ledger for different periods, the parties agreed that more than one year had elapsed since the restriction was imposed, and the petitioner stated that the underlying demand had since been assessed and was pending in appeal (Paras 2-5), the court held that, the restriction ceasing to have effect after one year under Rule 86A(3), no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitions pending (Para 4). The petitions were disposed of, with liberty to the GST authorities to proceed as per law (Para 6). HC · Gujarat ● Bail Granted Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka v State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026-juristway.com-3197-HC(Gujarat)-GST 28 October 2026 In Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka v. State of Gujarat, 2026-juristway.com-3197-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where the applicant, accused under Section 132 in File No. DGGI/INT/INTL/696/2026-GR-1 of availing fake ITC of about Rs. 43-44 crore through two firms, contended that he was merely an accountant, while DGGI alleged that he had forged documents and obtained registrations and that investigation was continuing (Paras 2-5), the court held that the statutory period being over, further investigation and the recording of witnesses’ statements were no ground to refuse bail, that apprehension of tampering could be addressed by conditions under the triple test as recognised in Vineet Jain, and that nothing remained to be recovered from the applicant (Para 7). Applying Sanjay Chandra and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, it granted regular bail subject to conditions including surrender of passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, reporting to the police station twice a month for three months and cooperating with the investigation (Paras 8-9). HC · Punjab & Haryana ● Allowed Gourav Kumar v Union of India and Others 2026-juristway.com-3196-HC(Punjab & Haryana)-GST 28 October 2026 In Gourav Kumar v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3196-HC(Punjab & Haryana)-GST , where the petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 27.03.2024 and an order dated 31.01.2025 imposing penalty under Section 122(1A), the short question being whether that provision operates retrospectively (Para 1), the court held that the statute does not indicate retrospective effect and that, absent express provision or necessary implication, a penal provision is prospective (Para 2). Agreeing with the Division Benches in Parag Garg (Delhi) and Amit Manilal Haria (Bombay), it allowed the petition and quashed the notice and order insofar as they related to the petitioner (Paras 3-4). HC · Delhi ● Other M/s. Rajkalpana Travels Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner CGST, Delhi North Commissionerate 2026-juristway.com-3195-HC(Delhi)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Rajkalpana Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi North, 2026-juristway.com-3195-HC(Delhi)-GST , where, after an audit for 2019-20 to 2023-24, an order dated 16.03.2026 under Section 74 confirmed Rs. 4,49,93,111 with interest and equal penalty, the petitioner contending that notices fixing hearings on 03.02.2026, 11.02.2026 and 19.02.2026 never reached its registered e-mail and the Revenue relying on e-mails that did not bounce back (Paras 1-13), the court, citing Commercial Steel, held that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar but that the competing positions on the correct e-mail address, communication of virtual hearing links and consideration of the audit replies raised factual questions suited to the appellate authority (Paras 16-27). The petitioner was relegated to an appeal under Section 107 with all contentions open, and any application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding the writ period was to be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law (Paras 28-31). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed DB Dazzle Modular Systems v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore 2026-juristway.com-3194-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s DB Dazzle Modular Systems v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2026-juristway.com-3194-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a manufacturer of raised access flooring tiles, newly covered by e-invoicing from 01.10.2022 under Notification No. 17/2022-Central Tax, dispatched goods to Maharashtra on 06.10.2022 with an e-way bill, a manual invoice and a delivery note after the IRP failed to generate an IRN, and was intercepted on 07.10.2022 and paid a 200% penalty of Rs. 5,81,316 to secure release, the first appellate authority holding under Rule 48(5) that the manual invoice was no invoice and that intent was irrelevant (Paras 2-4), the Tribunal held that the appellant had complied with the e-way bill requirement and that Rule 55(4) permits movement under a delivery note where the invoice cannot be issued at removal (Para 8). Applying Satyam Shivam Papers on the need for intent to evade under Section 129, and Athiyan Exports, which it held applied equally to inter-State supplies, it distinguished Jhansi Enterprises as a case of no documents at all, and held that payment under duress to release the vehicle did not preclude challenge (Paras 8-9). The appellate order was set aside and refund of Rs. 5,81,316 with statutory interest directed within eight weeks (Order). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed Bahadur Singh v Himanshu, Joint Commissioner State Tax, It Section, State Tax Headquarters, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3193-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 28 October 2026 In Bahadur Singh v. Himanshu, Joint Commissioner, State Tax, 2026-juristway.com-3193-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where a Delhi transporter’s vehicle intercepted at Lucknow on 30.04.2026 carried 23 categories of garments and textiles while the driver produced bilties and invoices for plastic goods, stationery and tyres not found in the vehicle, and the transporter attributed this to a booking clerk handing over the wrong bundle, later e-mailing invoices issued to unregistered buyers identified only by Aadhaar numbers and without e-way bills (Paras 1.2-1.8, 3), the Tribunal held the document-swap explanation unsupported by any manifest, dispatch log, FASTag data or identity of the alleged second vehicle, and that the law does not permit retrospective validation of movement by post-interception invoices (Paras 5.3-5.6). Distinguishing Khan Enterprises and Riya Traders, which concerned genuine documents accompanying the goods, it held that “coming forward” requires valid pre-existing documents, so the proper officer rightly proceeded under Section 129(1)(b) and valued the goods on objective parameters (Paras 5.7-5.15). The appeal was dismissed and the IGST penalty of Rs. 39,74,712 upheld (Order). HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Surya Prakash Aroma v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3183-HC(Allahabad)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Surya Prakash Aroma v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3183-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a demand arising from an ASMT-10 dated 25.07.2023 on ITC of Rs. 2,21,940 each under CGST and SGST auto-populated in Table 8A of the 2017-18 GSTR-9 was appealed late, and the appellate authority by order dated 04.07.2025 rejected the appeal holding it had no power to condone delay beyond 90 plus 30 days, the petitioner pleading that the sole proprietor was suffering from cancer, supported by medical certificates (Paras 3-8), the court, recording the State’s consent to a hearing on merits subject to costs, held that matters should be decided on merits (Para 9). The appellate order was set aside, the delay condoned and the appeal restored, to be decided within three months, subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000 by 13.11.2026 (Para 9). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Garg Duplex & Paper Mills Private Limited v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3182-HC(Allahabad)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Garg Duplex & Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3182-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where ITC of Rs. 38,63,690.55 on 2017-18 purchases of waste paper from two registered suppliers that had filed returns but not deposited tax was denied under Section 74 by an order dated 11.05.2023 demanding Rs. 1,57,74,197, and the appellate authority, while recording that the petitioner had produced invoices, e-way bills, bilties, weighment slips, ledgers and banking evidence and that there was no fraud, directed redetermination under Section 73(9) (Paras 4-6, 12-13), the petitioner contended that the appellate authority could not mechanically direct the proper officer to proceed under a particular provision (Paras 9-10). Noting that Shaurya Alloys requires the proper officer to apply an independent mind to whether the purchaser is liable under Section 16(2)(c), and on the State’s suggestion, the court left the appellate findings in the petitioner’s favour undisturbed but modified the order to direct the proper officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, bearing in mind the cited decisions, by a reasoned order after hearing, within four months (Paras 14-19). The Revenue remains free to proceed against the defaulting suppliers (Para 21). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Dismissed Kiran Bhatia v Prabha Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2026-juristway.com-3181-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 28 October 2026 In Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh v. Prabha Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3181-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where the Department challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 19.10.2023 upholding a refund of Rs. 44,14,988 of accumulated ITC on exports for June to September 2020, contending that Rs. 19,67,885 related to invoices whose goods were shipped after the refund period (Paras 1, 3-4), the Tribunal, following Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia, held that the invoices were issued within the relevant period and the goods admittedly exported, so the refund was admissible (Paras 6-10). It directed correction of the cause title to name the Commissioner as appellant under Rule 33(2) of the GSTAT Procedure Rules and dismissed the appeal (Paras 2, 11). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Bang Poly Packs (A Division of Bang Data Forms Pvt Ltd) v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3180-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Bang Poly Packs v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, 2026-juristway.com-3180-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where PP woven fabric, wastage and scrap being returned on 24.01.2024 by a job worker in Karnataka to its principal’s unit in Solapur, Maharashtra, under a delivery challan and an e-way bill marked as job work, were detained and tax and penalty of Rs. 1,08,882 each imposed under Section 129 because IGST had not been charged on an inter-State movement, and the first appellate authority upheld the order on contradictory reasoning (Paras 2-4, 15), the Tribunal admitted an additional ground of law under National Thermal Power Co. but held that demanding tax and penalty under the pre-amended Section 129(1)(a) instead of the post-01.01.2022 penalty was an error that did not make the order void (Paras 9-12). On merits, it held that under Section 143 the dispatch to and return from a job worker is not taxable, that the documents met Rules 55 and 138, and that the absence of IGST disclosed no contravention (Paras 13-16). The orders were set aside and refund of Rs. 2,17,764 with statutory interest directed within eight weeks (Order). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Needs Manpower Support Services Pvt Ltd v The Commissioner, The Commissioner of Central Taxes Vanijya Therige Bengaluru & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3179-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Needs Manpower Support Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Taxes, 2026-juristway.com-3179-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where, after an audit for July 2017 to March 2020, penalty under Section 74 was imposed and upheld on four items — RCM on legal and sponsorship services, RCM on small purchases from unregistered persons, RCM on rent-a-cab services, and non-reversal of ITC on amounts written off to a vendor, the last paid with tax of Rs. 31,585, interest and 15% penalty — on the ground that the values were not shown in GSTR-3B and constituted suppression under Explanation 2 (Paras 2-7), the Tribunal held that the question is whether the omission satisfied the statutory requirements of Section 74, not merely whether tax was paid late (Para 9). Applying Tata Steel and Instruction No. 05/2023-GST, it found that the appellant’s explanations on each item had not been considered, that the information was in the records audited, and that no intent to evade was shown (Paras 14-20). The order-in-appeal was set aside and the penalty cancelled (Order). HC · Delhi ● Other Manoj Kumar Prop M.K. Steel Traders v Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr. 2026-juristway.com-3165-HC(Delhi)-GST 28 October 2026 In Manoj Kumar v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, 2026-juristway.com-3165-HC(Delhi)-GST , where the petitioner, whose statement recorded on 19.05.2023 described him as distributing invoices unsupported by supplies against commission, challenged orders dated 04.02.2025 demanding Rs. 6,14,568 and Rs. 2,93,53,860 under Section 74, contending that the common notice dated 01.08.2024 lacked particulars, relying on G.R. Infra Projects, and that penalty had been imposed without being proposed (Paras 3-12), the court found that the notice, running to about 80 pages, set out the modus operandi and the roles of the noticees, and that being common to some 158 noticees did not make it deficient (Paras 16-18, 29-30). Holding that G.R. Infra Projects requires the factual basis for Section 74 to appear in the notice but that its application depends on the notice’s contents, and that the penalty objection could be examined on appeal, the court relegated the petitioner to the statutory remedy, expressing no view on merits, with any application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to be considered by the appellate authority (Paras 19-36). Load more
