GSTAT · Pune ● Dismissed M/s. Reliant Buildup, Sangli v The Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra. 2026-juristway.com-3296-GSTAT(Pune)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s. Reliant Buildup, Sangli v. Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra, 2026-juristway.com-3296-GSTAT(Pune)-GST , where a Sangli contractor charged 12% on works contracts executed in 2018-19 for four co-operative spinning mills sanctioned and funded under a Government of Maharashtra scheme, and an audit-based order under Section 73(9) dated 15.01.2024, as modified on 13.10.2025 by the first appellate authority (which dropped the Section 16(4) demand and the Section 122 penalty), left tax of Rs. 69,62,492 (Rs. 65,43,016 as the 18%–12% differential and Rs. 4,19,476 as credit not reflected in GSTR-2A), interest of Rs. 65,05,878 and penalty of Rs. 6,96,250, the Tribunal, taking the additional grounds and over a thousand pages of annexures on record (para 38), held that the recipients of the supplies were the societies, which invited the tenders, signed the agreements as owners and were billed, the Textile Department and the State-level Monitoring Committee having only sanctioned and supervised the projects (paras 41–49); that the societies were neither set up by statute nor shown to be established by Government, Shapoorji Pallonji not dispensing with that requirement (paras 50–56); that, independently, a factory for spinning yarn for sale is meant for industry and commerce (paras 58–62); that departmental minutes settling a GST component of the price cannot alter a rate notified under Section 9(1), and no estoppel lies against the statute (paras 42–44 and 69); that interest under Section 50(1) is compensatory and the Section 73(9) penalty is fixed by statute (paras 65–71); that the invoices were tax-exclusive, so no cum-tax recomputation arose (paras 72–73); and that the credit failed for want of the supplier certificates contemplated by Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, a remand being declined (paras 74–83); the appeal was dismissed, the demand of Rs. 1,41,64,620 upheld and the amounts paid at the first-appeal stage directed to be adjusted (para 84). HC · Calcutta ● Dismissed Deepak Kumar Daiya v The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3295-HC(Calcutta)-GST 04 November 2026 In Deepak Kumar Daiya v. State of West Bengal, 2026-juristway.com-3295-HC(Calcutta)-GST , where the appellant challenged a Single Judge's order dated 22.10.2026 in WPA 20184 of 2026 refusing to stay or quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 132 and 133 of the WBGST Act, contending that prior sanction of the Commissioner under Section 132(6) was required, that a notification dated 01.09.2022 contemplated prosecution normally only where the amount exceeded Rs. 500 lakh, and relying on Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Deepak Singhal v. Union of India, the Division Bench held that the FIR also alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, so that the rigours of the GST Act did not govern the FIR in its entirety and it could not be held vitiated at that premature stage (paras 6–7), leaving the appellant at liberty to challenge the clubbing of the GST offences without sanction at trial or a later stage under the BNSS; the appeal was dismissed on contest and the Single Judge's order affirmed, the merits being left open (paras 8–10). HC · J&K and Ladakh ● Allowed Som Nath Nagar Mal Th. Partner Sanjay Mahajan v Union of India and Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3294-HC(J&K and Ladakh)-GST 04 November 2026 In Som Nath Nagar Mal v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3294-HC(J&K and Ladakh)-GST , where notices and reminders culminated in an order dated 28.08.2024 under which the petitioner was made to pay tax, interest and penalty aggregating Rs. 98,21,986.38, and its appeal under Section 107 of the J&K GST Act was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner State Taxes (Appeals-I), Jammu on 12.08.2025 solely as time-barred, the petitioner making a limited submission that it had no hearing on the computation of tax or on revocation of registration and the Senior Additional Advocate General fairly conceding that the computation had not been adjudicated, the Division Bench, holding the case squarely covered by the Rajasthan High Court in S. Nabad Ali Mustak Ahmed, which held that the outer limit in Section 107(4) binds the appellate authority but not the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 (paras 5–6), revived the appeal with the delay condoned, directed the parties to appear before the appellate authority on 27.11.2026 and directed it to decide the computation of tax on merits, treating the appeal as filed in time (paras 6–7). GSTAT · Bhopal ● Dismissed Butulu Majhi v Pradhan Traders 2026-juristway.com-3293-GSTAT(Bhopal)-GST 04 November 2026 In Butulu Majhi v. Pradhan Traders, 2026-juristway.com-3293-GSTAT(Bhopal)-GST , where the Department filed an appeal under Section 112(3) on 26.03.2026 against Order-in-Appeal No. BHO-CGST-002-APP-223-online-2024-25 dated 27.12.2024 involving Rs. 2,44,144, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written submissions and replies, and at the final hearing on 02.11.2026 the Department applied to withdraw the appeal because the amount was below the monetary limit, the Tribunal noted that Circular No. 207/01/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024, issued under Section 120 on the recommendation of the GST Council, fixed Rs. 20,00,000 as the limit below which Central Tax officers shall not file appeals before the Tribunal, that the circular was in force when the appeal was filed, and that the authorised representative showed no sufficient reason or exceptional circumstance for filing in breach of it; holding that the Department had wasted the Tribunal's time and put the respondent to unjustified expense, it allowed the withdrawal application with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable to the respondent within one month and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed M/s Ram Niwas Sunil Kumar v Rakhi Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow 2026-juristway.com-3292-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 04 November 2026 In M/s Ram Niwas Sunil Kumar v. Rakhi Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow, 2026-juristway.com-3292-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where, for FY 2018-19, a grocery and spice trader was held to have availed excess ITC on a comparison of GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 with GSTR-2A and a demand of Rs. 6,63,460 (CGST and SGST of Rs. 3,31,730 each) with penalty of Rs. 66,346 was confirmed by Order-in-Original No. ZD0904244821673 dated 30.04.2024 and upheld by Order-in-Appeal No. ZD0901253112112 dated 27.01.2025, the appellant contending that IGST credit of Rs. 6,71,751.50 had been inadvertently reported as CGST and SGST of Rs. 3,35,875.76 each and that credit of Rs. 1,67,790 on purchases of Rs. 33,55,800 from M/s Shree Parasnath Collection, Kamrup, Assam in August 2018 was genuine and reflected in GSTR-2A, while the Revenue found the supplier's GSTR-3B for the period to be nil, the Tribunal held on the first issue that the appellant's figures differed from those in the order and required reconciliation from the original records and the electronic credit ledger (paras 7.3–7.4), and, relying on Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex and the treatment of the ledger as a combined pool in Circular No. 192/04/2023-GST, that the demand could not be sustained merely because credit was reflected under the wrong head (paras 7.5–7.6); on the second issue it held that reflection in GSTR-2A is not conclusive and that, following Maruti Enterprises, Sumetco Alloys and Bhandari Scrap Traders, the conditions of Section 16(2) are cumulative and the appellant had not shown that the tax charged was paid (paras 8–9.1); the appeal was partly allowed, the first issue being remanded for verification and the second rejected. HC · Himachal Pradesh ● Allowed M/s Greenlam Industries Limited and Another v Union of India and Others 2026-juristway.com-3291-HC(Himachal Pradesh)-GST 03 November 2026 In M/s Greenlam Industries Limited v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3291-HC(Himachal Pradesh)-GST , where three show cause notices dated 25.07.2025 in Form GST DRC-01 were issued to the petitioners under Rule 96(10), and the petitioners, besides challenging its vires, contended that the rule had been omitted by Notification No. 20/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause, so that notices issued thereafter rested on a non-existent rule, the respondents being unable to dispute those facts, the court, extracting the Supreme Court's judgment in Goodluck India (SLP (C) No. 24550 of 2025), which applied Kolhapur Canesugar Works to hold that pending proceedings cannot continue after omission of a rule absent a saving clause or legal device, and Circular No. 264/10/2026-GST dated 26.10.2026 clarifying that the omission is effective retrospectively from 23.10.2017 (paras 6–7), held the notices non est for want of statutory backing and quashed them, the petition being allowed with consequences to ensue (para 8). GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed MPS Steels, Palakkad v The Commissioner of CGST & Ce, Kochi. 2026-juristway.com-3290-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 03 November 2026 In MPS Steels, Palakkad v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi, 2026-juristway.com-3290-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST , where a show cause notice dated 20.11.2023 proposed disallowance of ITC of Rs. 3,06,504 (CGST and SGST of Rs. 1,53,252 each) for FY 2018-19 on invoices of suppliers who had not filed GSTR-3B, invoking only Section 16(2)(aa), the order-in-original dated 03.04.2024 confirmed it under Section 16(2)(c) on the footing that the suppliers had not paid the tax, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), relying on Commissioner of Service Tax v. ITC Ltd. of the Delhi High Court, upheld that part as a mere wrong reference to the provision, the Tribunal held that clause (aa), effective from 01.01.2022, could not govern 2018-19 supplies (para 8.3); that the order-in-original side-stepped that objection and confirmed a charge under Section 16(2)(c) that was never put to the taxpayer, not even at the hearing (paras 8.4–8.7); that ITC Ltd. concerned non-referral of a sub-clause in a notice that otherwise set out the facts and law, whereas this was a wrong referral that left the taxpayer blindsided (paras 8.11–8.12(e)); and that confirmation on grounds other than those in the notice breached Section 75(7), as affirmed in Armour Security following Champdany Industries and Ballarpur Industries (paras 8.12(f)–(i)); interest and penalty fell with the tax (para 8.12(j)), and paras 1, 4 and 6 of the operative portion of the order-in-appeal were set aside with consequential relief. HC · Allahabad ● Bail Granted Mohsin @ Mohsinuddin v State of U.P. 2026-juristway.com-3283-HC(Allahabad)-GST 03 November 2026 In Mohsin @ Mohsinuddin v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3283-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the applicant, in jail since 16.04.2026 in Case Crime No. 205 of 2025 under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur, was not among the three persons named in the FIR dated 04.10.2025 lodged by GST officials, was implicated during investigation by his confession that he used to register companies under GST, and alleged that the laptop and mobile phone shown as recovered at his instance were planted after a dispute with a policeman over parking of a motorcycle, the State opposing bail but not disputing these facts, the court found that, prima facie, there was no implicating material against him except his disclosure statement (para 6) and, without touching the merits, allowed the application on a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, in view of Girish Gandhi and In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, directing him to cooperate for a fair and speedy disposal (paras 7–9). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Processing and Cold Storage Federation Limited v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3282-HC(Allahabad)-GST 03 November 2026 In M/s Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Processing and Cold Storage Federation Limited v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3282-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where, after a summons under Section 70, a show cause notice under Section 73 dated 18.11.2022 for FY 2017-18 called for a reply by 24.12.2022 but recited "NA" against the date, time and venue of personal hearing, an order under Section 73(9) dated 30.12.2023 imposed liability on the petitioner, whose GST registration had been closed, and its appeal under Section 107(1), filed after it learnt of the order following a long interval, was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Judicial Division, Bulandshahr on 27.02.2026, the Standing Counsel contending that the petitioner had acted recklessly in not appealing within time, the court held that, the notice not specifying the date, time and venue of hearing, the procedural part stood vitiated in view of the plethora of judgments on the subject (para 8); the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bulandshahr Sector-I dated 30.12.2023 and the appellate order dated 27.02.2026 were set aside and the matter remitted, the petitioner being deemed to have knowledge of the notice, with a hearing to be fixed in the last week of November 2026, a fresh order by 31.12.2026 and no unnecessary adjournments (paras 9–11). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed Vilasa Developers v Himanshu Verma, JC (IT), Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3281-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 03 November 2026 In Vilasa Developers v. Himanshu Verma, JC (IT), Lucknow, 2026-juristway.com-3281-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where, after an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A bearing Reference No. ZD090226167313E dated 23.02.2026 under Section 74A alleging ITC on purchases from suppliers whose registrations had been cancelled, a show cause notice dated 16.03.2026 proposed cancellation of the firm's registration on the allegation that it was claiming ITC in violation of Section 16(2), recording an oral communication from the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-19, the registration was cancelled on 01.04.2026, revocation was refused on 15.05.2026, and the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Lucknow upheld both orders on 25.09.2026 in Appeal No. GST/353/26 after obtaining clarification from the registering authority by letter No. 113 dated 03.06.2026, the Section 74A proceedings remaining undecided, the Tribunal held that the notice disclosed no supplier, GSTIN, period or credit (para 5.3) and, following Nice Enterprises and G.R. Infra Project, that a notice must itself carry the particulars necessary to sustain it, its deficiencies being incapable of later cure (paras 5.1–5.2 and 5.5); that the appellate authority could not confirm cancellation on an enquiry report not mentioned in the notice without the opportunity of rebuttal contemplated by Rule 112 (para 5.4); that an oral intimation cannot ground cancellation, and the appellate authority's reliance on Section 29, which the notice and the cancellation order never invoked, could not cure the defect (paras 5.7–5.8); and that the omission of the ITC ground from the cancellation provision by Notification No. 05/2026-Central Tax dated 26.10.2026, with effect from 01.11.2026, was a relevant consideration (para 5.6); confining itself to cancellation without observation on the Section 74A proceedings (para 5.8), the Tribunal set aside the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal, revoked the cancellation and restored the registration. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed BPJ Construction LLP v Himanshu Verma, JC (IT), Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3280-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 03 November 2026 In BPJ Construction LLP v. Himanshu Verma, JC (IT), Lucknow, 2026-juristway.com-3280-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where, after an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 21.02.2026 under Section 74A alleging ITC on invoices of suppliers whose registrations had been cancelled, a show cause notice dated 16.03.2026 proposed cancellation of the Lucknow LLP's registration on the bare allegation that it was claiming ITC in violation of Section 16(2), recording that the Deputy Commissioner had "orally informed" the proper officer, the registration was cancelled on 01.04.2026, revocation was refused on 15.05.2026, and the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Lucknow upheld both orders on 25.09.2026 after obtaining clarification from the registering authority by letter dated 03.06.2026, the Section 74A proceedings remaining undecided, the Tribunal held that the notice disclosed no supplier, GSTIN, period or amount (para 5.3) and, following Nice Enterprises and G.R. Infra Project, that a notice must itself contain the particulars necessary to sustain it, its deficiencies being incapable of later cure (paras 5.1–5.2 and 5.5); that the first appellate authority could not confirm cancellation on an enquiry report not mentioned in the notice without the opportunity of rebuttal contemplated by Rule 112 (para 5.4); that an oral intimation is no ground for cancellation, and the invocation of Section 29 for the first time in appeal could not cure the absence of Section 29 and Rule 22 from the notice and the order (paras 5.7–5.8); and that the omission of the ITC ground from the cancellation provision by Notification No. 05/2026-Central Tax dated 26.10.2026, with effect from 01.11.2026, was a relevant consideration (para 5.6); confining itself to cancellation without observation on the Section 74A proceedings (para 5.8), the Tribunal set aside the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal, revoked the cancellation and restored the registration. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Other M/s Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd v Sanjay Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow 2026-juristway.com-3279-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 03 November 2026 In M/s Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow, 2026-juristway.com-3279-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where MSTC Limited, Lucknow, appearing in person, appealed under Section 112(1) against an order-in-appeal dated 23.02.2026 in a dispute in which the aggregate tax or input tax credit involved was Rs. 14,182, the Tribunal, noting that Section 112(2) empowers it in its discretion to refuse to admit an appeal where the tax, credit, fine, fee or penalty involved does not exceed Rs. 50,000 (paras 1.2–1.4), held that the appeal did not warrant admission and refused it at the threshold (para 1.5), clarifying that neither the grounds nor the substantive issues had been examined on merits (para 1.6); the order-in-appeal dated 23.02.2026 was left undisturbed and the appeal disposed of (para 1.7). HC · Bombay ● Allowed M/s Above Ground Level Travco LLP v The Union of India Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, The State of Maharashtra Through The Commissioner of State Tax, Mumbai, The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Appellate Authority – Appeal – I, Mumbai., The State Tax Officer Mumbai. 2026-juristway.com-3289-HC(Bombay)-GST 02 November 2026 In M/s Above Ground Level Travco LLP v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3289-HC(Bombay)-GST , where IGST of Rs. 8,11,912 on an invoice of Rs. 53,17,814 from M/s Jet Set Go Aviation Services Ltd. received in March 2019 was recorded in GSTR-3B for that month as CGST and SGST of Rs. 4,05,596 each and corrected by the petitioner in its GSTR-3B for September 2019, a show cause notice dated 27.05.2024 and an ex parte order dated 29.07.2024 were only uploaded on the portal, the petitioner learnt of them in February–March 2025 when the nodal officer telephoned about the amnesty scheme, its appeal filed on 07.02.2025 was rejected on limitation on 29.12.2025, and a notice under Section 79(1)(c) dated 11.02.2026 directed its bank to pay Rs. 16,25,258 without notice to it, the court held that the petitioner was not heard and the notice, the order and the appellate order were in gross defiance of natural justice (para 5), following T.S. Lines India, Abracadabra India and Axiom Gen Nxt India on portal-only service (paras 6–8), and noted that the petitioner had rectified the error itself, as the court had permitted bona fide correction without revenue loss in Star Engineers (paras 9–10); the recovery notice, the show cause notice, the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal were quashed (para 11). HC · Himachal Pradesh ● Dismissed Rakesh Kumar v Union of India and Others. 2026-juristway.com-3288-HC(Himachal Pradesh)-GST 02 November 2026 In Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3288-HC(Himachal Pradesh)-GST , where the petitioner, who had omitted to file nil returns for July to December 2024 when he had no sales, did not reply to a show cause notice dated 12.02.2025, suffered cancellation of his registration by order dated 04.07.2025 and an order dated 20.03.2026 imposing liability, and sought quashing of both and restoration of registration on the plea that, not being tech-savvy and dependent on his accountant, he never accessed the portal and so lost the remedy of appeal, the Division Bench held that Section 107 confers the appellate remedy with a three-month period extendable by only one month (para 6); that a party who fails to invoke that statutory remedy within time cannot take advantage of its own omission to invoke Article 226, since doing so would render statutory limitation otiose wherever a bar on condonation exists (paras 7–9); and that the right of appeal is statutory, so that, when not availed, "the right remains but the remedy goes", lack of technical familiarity being no immunity from the Act (paras 10–11); the petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue any remedy available under the CGST Act (para 12). GSTAT · Mumbai ● Allowed Aslam Vali Shaikh v Nilesh Subhash Kothawade, Mumbai 2026-juristway.com-3286-GSTAT(Mumbai)-GST 02 November 2026 In Aslam Vali Shaikh v. Nilesh Subhash Kothawade, 2026-juristway.com-3286-GSTAT(Mumbai)-GST , where an importer-trader's credit of Rs. 6,36,082, being IGST paid under three bills of entry of May, June and October 2018, was disallowed by an ex parte order under Section 73(9) dated 30.08.2022 as "not confirmed in GSTR-2A or 8A of GSTR-9", with interest of Rs. 3,81,649 and penalty of Rs. 63,608, the appellant filed a first appeal on 30.01.2024 under Notification No. 53/2023-CT paying the full 12.5% pre-deposit through the electronic credit ledger, and the appellate authority rejected it on 04.03.2025 for want of the 20% cash component, also calling it time-barred, the Tribunal held that the notification itself supplied the limitation, the appeal being filed within its window, so that no question of time-bar or condonation arose (paras 15–21); that paragraph 3 of the notification regulates the quantum and mode of deposit, not limitation, and a curable defect in payment does not destroy a timely appeal, consistent with Alis Super Market (paras 22–39); that no further cash deposit was required, since credit-ledger payment is a valid mode of pre-deposit and requiring more would raise it to 15% (paras 40–45); and, deciding the merits under Section 113(1), that import IGST is paid by the importer at customs clearance against a bill of entry with no domestic supplier or GSTR-1 involved, that clause (aa) of Section 16(2) was not in force in 2018-19, that Table 8A of GSTR-9 by design excludes imports, that the credit matched the bills of entry and GSTR-2A to the rupee, and that June 2018 had been correctly reported (paras 46–57); the appellate and original orders were set aside, the demand of Rs. 10,81,339 quashed, the credit held admissible and the pre-deposits directed to be refunded under Section 115. HC · Telangana ● Bail Granted Shaik Mohammed Abdul Jabbar v The Principal Commissioner/commissioner, The Superintendent. 2026-juristway.com-3278-HC(Telangana)-GST 02 November 2026 In Shaik Mohammed Abdul Jabbar v. Principal Commissioner, 2026-juristway.com-3278-HC(Telangana)-GST , where the petitioner, a director of a private limited company, was served an arrest memo and the reasons and grounds of arrest at about 11:20 p.m. on 24.09.2026 for an offence under Section 132 in File No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/1805/2025-AE, GST Commissionerate, Secunderabad and remanded to judicial custody the same day, contended that arrest for an offence punishable with less than seven years was illegal under Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar, that no assessment order had been passed against the company and that directors could not be vicariously liable, and his voluntary statement was recorded on 29.10.2026 and 30.10.2026 under the trial court's order dated 28.10.2026, the Revenue, while contending that those decisions did not apply in view of Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025 INSC 272), submitted that he might be enlarged on bail on conditions, and the court, on that submission, granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, subject to appearance before the respondents on two days' notice and a condition not to be involved in similar offences (paras 3–9). HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Unnati Enterprises A Proprietorship Concern Thru. Proprietor Krishna Kumar v Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue New Delhi and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3277-HC(Allahabad)-GST 02 November 2026 In M/s Unnati Enterprises v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3277-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by order dated 02.07.2026 and an order dated 04.08.2026 was passed on its application for revocation, the issue being the non-deposit of input tax credit, the Division Bench held that the authorities ought to have taken steps to recover the credit under Sections 73 and 74 instead of cancelling the registration (para 4), that the action was not in consonance with the procedure established by law (para 5), and that, the petitioner having regularly filed returns, there was no justification for cancellation (para 6); the authorities were directed to allow revocation of the cancellation in accordance with law, with liberty to issue a show cause notice in respect of any other violation (paras 7–8). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Shri Ganpati Carring Corp v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3276-HC(Allahabad)-GST 02 November 2026 In M/s Shri Ganpati Carrying Corporation v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026-juristway.com-3276-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where, for FY 2018-19, a Saharanpur goods transport firm did not reply to a notice under Section 61 dated 15.07.2023 or to a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.12.2023 whose personal-hearing columns recited "N.A.", an order under Section 73 dated 23.04.2024 was passed without hearing, and its appeal under Section 107, filed with a delay of 70 days, was rejected on 04.08.2025 as beyond the condonable period, the Standing Counsel conceding that no date, time or venue of hearing had been fixed, the court held that non-submission of a reply does not denude the assessee of a hearing and that the authority ought to have fixed a date, time and venue so that the assessee could put forward its stand orally (para 12), the foundation of the proceedings being thereby vitiated (para 13); both orders were set aside and the matter remitted, the petitioner being deemed to have knowledge of the notice and directed to reply by 13.11.2026, with a hearing in the week commencing 23.11.2026 on at least five days' notice by registered post, e-mail, telephone and WhatsApp, adjournments allowed only in exceptional circumstances and for not more than three days, and a fresh order by 24.12.2026 (paras 14–16). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed Vishal Singh v Poorvi Enterprises 2026-juristway.com-3275-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 02 November 2026 In Vishal Singh v. Poorvi Enterprises, 2026-juristway.com-3275-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where an inspection on 16.05.2025 by the Special Investigation Branch, Range-A, Lucknow of the respondent's units at Sandila, Hardoi recorded 30,352.69 kg of stainless steel bright bars and 9,046 kg of stainless steel wire in excess of the books, valued at Rs. 35,55,215, the respondent deposited Rs. 12,79,876 through Form GST DRC-03 on 17.05.2025, which it later said was paid under pressure, an order dated 26.07.2025 under Sections 130 and 122 confirmed Rs. 12,79,877.96 (CGST and UPGST of Rs. 3,19,969.49 each and a confiscation fine of Rs. 6,39,938.98), and the first appellate authority set it aside by Order-in-Appeal No. ZD091025124609D dated 04.10.2025, the Tribunal held the appeal maintainable despite Circular No. 207/01/2024-GST, the choice between Section 130 and Sections 73/74 for stock discrepancies involving interpretation of the Act (paras 1.1–1.3); on merits it found no independent evidence of manipulation of accounts (para 7.2), held that Section 130 requires proof of intent to evade and cannot be invoked merely to secure higher fines, the respondent being a regular filer of returns (paras 7.3 and 7.6–7.7), and found the verification sheets unreliable, quantities having been estimated visually and the sheets for Unit L3 and Units L4–L5 being irreconcilable (paras 6.4 and 7.4), following Vijay Trading Company and PP Polyplast, against which the Revenue's special leave petitions had been dismissed (para 7.8); the departmental appeal was dismissed and the order-in-appeal upheld. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed Shaily Singh v M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. 2026-juristway.com-3274-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 02 November 2026 In Shaily Singh v. M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3274-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where a vehicle carrying pan masala and zarda tobacco under Invoice Nos. 122 and 123 dated 07.05.2022 (Rs. 1,77,000 and Rs. 69,000) from the respondent's Fazalganj factory, Kanpur for a buyer at Gorakhpur was intercepted at Tatmill Crossing, Kanpur on 07.05.2022 with Part-A of two e-way bills but no Part-B, physical verification in Form GST MOV-04 dated 08.05.2022 found no discrepancy, penalty of Rs. 2,55,792 (CGST Rs. 33,072, SGST Rs. 33,072 and compensation cess Rs. 1,89,648) imposed in Form GST MOV-09 dated 09.05.2022 was deposited under protest, and the first appellate authority quashed it by Order-in-Appeal No. ZD0901231330611 dated 31.01.2023, the Tribunal first overruled the objection that the amount was below the Rs. 20,00,000 limit in Circular No. 207/01/2024-GST, holding that the mobile squad's enforcement jurisdiction raised a recurring issue within the exclusions in paragraph 4 of the circular (paras 2–2.1); on merits it held that the movement of about 5 km to the depot of Swastik Transport Corporation at Transport Nagar, Kanpur, for onward carriage, fell within the third proviso to Rule 138(3), and that under Explanation 2 the e-way bill remained valid without Part-B, a portal legend being unable to override the Rule (paras 7.3–7.4); that e-invoices generated before departure and a nil variance in MOV-04 excluded any presumption of evasion (para 7.5); and that the route-deviation theory, absent from the driver's statement in MOV-01 and from MOV-04 and MOV-06 and first raised in MOV-07, was an afterthought for which the Revenue bore the burden of proof (paras 7.6–7.6.1), following Hindustan Steel and Monotech Systems (paras 7.7–7.8); the departmental appeal was dismissed and the order-in-appeal upheld. SC ● Dismissed The State of Gujarat & Ors. v Asian Paints Limited. 2026-juristway.com-3266-SC-GST 02 November 2026 In State of Gujarat v. Asian Paints Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3266-SC-GST , where the State of Gujarat sought special leave against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in favour of Asian Paints Limited, the special leave petition having been registered on a diary number of 2019, the Supreme Court condoned the delay, declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and order, and dismissed the special leave petition. SC ● Dismissed M/s. Patanjali Foods Limited v Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3265-SC-GST 02 November 2026 In M/s. Patanjali Foods Limited v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3265-SC-GST , where the petitioner sought special leave to appeal, the Supreme Court, finding no good ground to entertain the petition, dismissed the special leave petition and disposed of pending applications. GSTAT · Pune ● Allowed M/s Propix Technologies Private Limited, Pune v The Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra 2026-juristway.com-3264-GSTAT(Pune)-GST 02 November 2026 In M/s Propix Technologies Private Limited v. Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra, 2026-juristway.com-3264-GSTAT(Pune)-GST , where the appellant's refund of Rs. 77,188 of tax paid on five deemed export supplies to Wockhardt Ltd., an EOU, under invoices dated 22.12.2023 to 11.05.2024, claimed in RFD-01 dated 08.01.2025 for the period "April 2022 to May 2024", was rejected by OIO dated 05.03.2025 on grounds of multi-year period, limitation and absence of Form A, and the first appellate authority on 26.12.2025, though accepting limitation and Form A, upheld the rejection on the ground that both the recipient and the supplier were claiming refund, the Tribunal held that para 2.5 of Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST permits clubbing across financial years (para 19); that the relevant date is fixed supply-wise by the return relating to each deemed export, so the claim was within time and entering an earlier start date brought in no earlier supply (para 20); that Form A dated 14.12.2023 had been sent before the first supply (para 21); and that the recipient's undertakings in its monthly Form B and declaration dated 12.12.2025 satisfied the second proviso to Rule 89(1), while the finding of a double claim identified no application by the recipient and could not stand (paras 22–23); both orders were set aside, the refund determined at Rs. 77,188 and the proper officer directed to grant it with interest, if any, under Section 56 (paras 24–25). GSTAT · Agra ● Allowed Technocem Systems India Private Limited v Shri Prakash Yadav, Joint Commissioner (It), Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3263-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 31 October 2026 In Technocem Systems India Private Limited v. Shri Prakash Yadav, Joint Commissioner (IT), Uttar Pradesh, 2026-juristway.com-3263-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where industrial machinery supplied by the appellant to ACC Limited, Karnataka under tax invoices and e-way bills dated 27.09.2024 and 03.10.2024 was intercepted at Agra on 07.10.2024 without discrepancy in goods or documents, but the officer treated a stock-transfer invoice between the appellant's Haryana and Delhi registrations dated 04.10.2024, a day after dispatch, as a contravention and imposed penalty of Rs. 7,75,240 under Section 129, upheld in first appeal on 23.07.2025, the Tribunal held, following the Allahabad High Court in Maruti Enterprises, that Uttar Pradesh as a transit State had only limited powers of inspection and verification, could at most intimate deficiencies to the origin or destination State, and could not impose penalty under Section 129, such action also offending Article 301 (para 7); and that the date mismatch was a revenue-neutral inter-branch sequencing irregularity, not the evasion Section 129 addresses (para 8); both orders were set aside and any penalty or security collected directed to be refunded with interest as per law (paras 9–10). GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Commissioner State Tax (Through-Shailendra Kumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner v Nihal Tobacco Company, M/s Sambhu Dayal Kaushal and Sons, Kaimganj, M/s Raghav International, M/s Anant Enterprises, M/s Vishesh Tobacco Company, Kaimganj. 2026-juristway.com-3251-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 31 October 2026 In Commissioner State Tax v. Nihal Tobacco Company, 2026-juristway.com-3251-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where, in five appeals, SIB and special investigation teams found unaccounted tobacco raw material, tobacco dust and tobacco products at the respondents' premises at Kaimganj and elsewhere (including 56,735 kg of raw tobacco, 3,30,997 kg of tobacco dust valued at Rs. 16,54,985, tobacco leaves worth Rs. 35,22,208 and 27,029 kg of products valued at Rs. 12,16,755), imposed penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 130 read with Section 122 ranging from Rs. 1,21,676 to Rs. 6,28,350, and the first appellate authority set aside each order, the Tribunal held that APL/82/AGR/2026, directed only against a rectification order under Section 161 without challenge to the original order-in-appeal, was not maintainable under Section 112 (preliminary para (i)); and, following Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, Shri Om Steels and V.K. Electricals, and reading Section 35(1) with Section 35(6), that where excess or unaccounted stock is found on survey of business premises the proper officer may proceed only under Sections 73 or 74, not under Section 130 (paras 13–17); all five departmental appeals were dismissed. Load more
