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. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed MG Traders v Ruby Singh, Additional Commissioner Grade-2, Appeal-2 Agra & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3250-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 31 October 2026 In MG Traders v. Ruby Singh, Additional Commissioner Grade-2, Appeal-2, Agra, 2026-juristway.com-3250-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where groundnut kernels (moongfali dana) supplied by the appellant from Jhansi to Premiere Oil Mill, Alwar under Tax Invoice No. 05 dated 01.05.2022 and E-way Bill No. 451248313761 for a distance of 383 km were intercepted at Agra on 05.05.2022 after the e-way bill had expired, a penalty of Rs. 1,78,288 was imposed under Section 129(3) and upheld in first appeal on 01.07.2024, and the appellant pleaded a breakdown en route, the Tribunal held that repair slips produced only at adjudication, and no breakdown mentioned by the driver at interception, made the explanation unacceptable (para 8); that Globe Panel and other Allahabad High Court decisions on breakdown or blank Part-B were distinguishable (paras 10–13); and that, applying Dharmendra Textile Processors, B.M. Computers and Jhansi Enterprises, mens rea is not an essential element of a civil penalty and intent may be gathered from the circumstances, an expired e-way bill being tantamount to no e-way bill (paras 16–19); the appeal was dismissed and the concurrent orders upheld. GSTAT · New Delhi ● Allowed M/s. Expedia Online Travel Services India Private Limited, Through its Director, Shri Deepak Kumar Kothari v Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Haryana. 2026-juristway.com-3249-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST 30 October 2026 In M/s. Expedia Online Travel Services India Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Haryana, 2026-juristway.com-3249-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST , where refunds of unutilised ITC aggregating Rs. 55,99,74,202 for FY 2019-20 to 2022-23 on zero-rated supply of business support and contract software development services to Expedia Inc. and its affiliates under agreements of 01.07.2010 and 01.10.2016 were rejected in full on the ground that the services were intermediary services with place of supply in India, and the four orders-in-appeal affirmed the rejections, the Principal Bench held that, the intermediary question determining the place of supply under Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, the appeals fell within its exclusive jurisdiction under the first proviso to Section 109(5) (paras 13–19); that, following its decisions in Navitas Eduservices and Dow Chemical International and the High Court rulings in Genpact, Columbia Sportswear, Blackberry India and FATEH Education Consulting, and reading Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST, the appellant supplied its own services on a principal-to-principal basis, had no authority to bind its principal, was neither broker nor agent nor "any other person" construed ejusdem generis, and was a separate legal entity, so the services were exports under Section 2(6) (paras 20–27), the DGGI's conclusion of 21.05.2026 buttressing that view (paras 23–24); and that the additional grounds in APL/15/PB/2026 (BRC mismatch, GSTR-2A, nexus) were unspecified in the notice and undecided below (paras 28–30); the orders were set aside and refund directed with interest under Section 56. GSTAT · Agra ● Allowed Commissioner State Tax (Through-Krishna Veer Yadav, Deputy Commissioner) v Arss Sips, New Delhi. 2026-juristway.com-3248-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 30 October 2026 In Commissioner State Tax (U.P.) v. ARSS SIPS, 2026-juristway.com-3248-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where a joint venture had invoiced Rs. 12,13,74,088 in 2019-20 to North Central Railway for earthwork in embankments, drains, retaining walls, minor and major bridges and shifting of signal and cable equipment, charging GST at 12%, a demand of Rs. 72,82,446 at 18% under Section 74 was confirmed by order dated 28.06.2025, and the first appellate authority on 16.01.2026 set it aside as works contract services to Railways at 12%, retaining only Rs. 43,248 on other income, the Tribunal held that the 12% entry in S. No. 3(v)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate), as amended by Notification No. 20/2017-CT (Rate), applies only to composite supply of works contract to Railways, and that, the invoices describing the services as "general construction services" and the taxpayer not having demonstrated with structural proofs and billing breakups that the services were works contracts in relation to immovable property, the services defaulted to the 18% rate (paras 9–10); the first appellate authority's view that all railway construction services qualify for 12% was held untenable, the order-in-appeal set aside and the order-in-original restored (paras 11–12). GSTAT · Agra ● Allowed M/s Om Textiles Mills v Commissioner of State Tax, Commisssioner of State Tax, Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3247-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 30 October 2026 In M/s Om Textiles Mills v. Commissioner of State Tax, 2026-juristway.com-3247-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where an additional demand of Rs. 1,18,26,516 raised under Section 73 by order dated 05.07.2024 was paid through the electronic credit ledger, set aside in first appeal on 03.10.2024, and re-credited in Form GST PMT-03 without interest after the adjudicating authority's report admitted delay due to workload, and the first appellate authority rejected the claim to interest because the taxpayer had paid the whole demand instead of the pre-deposit, the Tribunal held that Section 56 applied as the refund was delayed (para 18); that the mode of payment cannot be a ground to deny interest, since credit debited towards a demand is as unavailable to the taxpayer as cash until restored and the department showed no provision barring interest (paras 19–26); and that Section 107(6) prescribes a minimum, not a ceiling, so payment of the full demand cannot be treated as a waiver of the right to refund with interest (paras 27–36); the appeal was allowed and the proper officer directed to examine the taxpayer's interest computation within three weeks and disburse the interest to its bank account (paras 37–39). GSTAT · Agra ● Remanded Commissioner State Tax (U.P) (Through- Vijay Bhadur, Deputy Commissioner) v Mahaveer Pipe Store, Kamla Nagar, Agra 2026-juristway.com-3246-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 30 October 2026 In Commissioner State Tax (U.P.) v. Mahaveer Pipe Store, 2026-juristway.com-3246-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where, on the basis of three diaries seized during an SIB inspection on 07.08.2018, the adjudicating authority treated Rs. 34,71,068 as suppressed turnover and imposed tax and equal penalty of Rs. 5,83,608.24 each, and the first appellate authority on 23.02.2023 reduced the suppressed turnover to Rs. 95,734 with tax and penalty of Rs. 17,232 each, accepting 85 B2B invoices produced at the appellate stage and the explanation for 36 of 76 hand pumps, the Revenue appealing that the invoices were an afterthought, the Tribunal held that neither order contained an entry-wise analysis showing how the suppressed turnover or the sale of 76 hand pumps was computed, or why particular entries were accepted or rejected (paras 21–33), that the invoices could neither be accepted nor rejected without verification against the diaries, GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B (paras 25–29), and that a transaction already accounted for and taxed could not ordinarily be taxed again (para 28); both orders were set aside and the matter remanded with detailed directions for entry-wise verification, reconciliation, quantification and a speaking order after hearing (para 38). HC · Chhattisgarh ● Other Korba Steel Castings Proprietorship Firm Through its Proprietor Surendra Nath Sharma v State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Commercial Tax Raipur, State Tax Officer State Tax Korba 2026-juristway.com-3245-HC(Chhattisgarh)-GST 30 October 2026 In Korba Steel Castings v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026-juristway.com-3245-HC(Chhattisgarh)-GST , where an ex parte assessment order dated 13.12.2023 in Case No. 203 STO/SCRUT./2017-18 assessed Rs. 8,17,771.69 including interest and penalty, allegedly without a show cause notice and contrary to Sections 61, 73 and 169, and the petitioner learnt of it only when a notice dated 24.03.2026 under Section 79(1)(c) required its supplier, M/s Maruti Aluminum Foil & Sheets, to pay the liability from amounts due to the petitioner, the State contending that sufficient opportunity had been given and that limitation had expired, the court, on the petitioner's offer to deposit 50% of the liability, held that a case for interference under Article 226 to do complete justice was made out (para 8); the petitioner was permitted to file a statutory appeal within one month, the delay being condoned on deposit of Rs. 4,08,885.84, with the appellate authority to decide on merits and the petitioner at liberty to raise all defences including the ex parte nature of the order. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Commissioner State Tax U.P (Through-Amit Kumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner) v Govindam Flavours, Keshav Nagar, Kanpur 2026-juristway.com-3244-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 30 October 2026 In Commissioner State Tax, U.P. v. Govindam Flavours, 2026-juristway.com-3244-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where goods moving from Kanpur to Mumbai under E-Tax Invoice No. GST/24-25/071 dated 21.10.2024 were intercepted at Jhansi on 22.10.2024 because Part-B of the e-way bill had not been updated, penalty of Rs. 5,12,676 was imposed under Section 129(3), and the first appellate authority on 13.11.2024 set it aside, the respondent also objecting that the amount was below the monetary limit in the Commissioner's Circular No. 2425008 dated 05.07.2024, the Tribunal held that clause 4(vi) of the circular permits an appeal where the Commissioner considers it necessary in the interest of justice or revenue, and that opinion need not be reasoned, so the appeal was maintainable (para 21); on merits, following Satyam Traders, Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics and Citykart Retail, it held that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of Section 129 proceedings, that the officer had recorded no finding of intent, and that an e-invoice generated before movement and auto-populated in GSTR-1 rebutted any presumption of evasion (paras 23–30); the departmental appeal was dismissed. GSTAT · Agra ● Remanded Vijay Pal Singh v Chaudhary Iron Traders Agra 2026-juristway.com-3243-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 30 October 2026 In Vijay Pal Singh v. Chaudhary Iron Traders, 2026-juristway.com-3243-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where an SIB inspection on 03.02.2022 found the respondent's declared place of business closed with a "Vacant for Rent" notice and no stock, the landlord's son stating that the tenant had vacated about two months earlier, the proper officer ex parte imposed penalty of Rs. 44,26,603 under Section 122(1) for issuing and receiving invoices without supply, and the first appellate authority set it aside, the respondent pleading that business was discontinued on 31.12.2021 after disposal of stock and that machinery had been installed, the Tribunal held that a closed premises and absence of stock do not conclusively establish fictitious transactions (para 25), but that mere assertion of past business is equally insufficient (paras 26–28), and that the first appellate authority had not examined books, transport, weighment, payment and e-way bill records or the dates of cancellation of the suppliers' registrations (paras 29–34); the orders below were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after an effective hearing with liberty to produce evidence (paras 35–39). GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Ram Kumar Yadav v Saroj Anand Khattar (Meera Trading Company) 2026-juristway.com-3242-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 30 October 2026 In Ram Kumar Yadav v. Saroj Anand Khattar (Meera Trading Company), 2026-juristway.com-3242-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where a consignment of arecanuts from Meera Trading Company, Nagpur to Girraj Supari Traders LLP, Mathura, moving under Tax Invoice No. 24-25/nov/001 and E-way Bill No. 261856870461 dated 11.11.2024, was detained on 12.11.2024 at Lalitpur because the supplier's invoices were not numbered consecutively as required by Rule 46, penalty of Rs. 6,65,028 was imposed under Section 129(3) and paid under protest, and the first appellate authority on 09.12.2024 set it aside as a bona fide human error, the Tribunal held that no other discrepancy in documents, quantity or tax payment was found, that Section 129 targets evasion, clandestine removal and undocumented movement, not technical numbering lapses in a revenue-neutral transaction between registered persons, and that any penalty for breach of Rule 46 lay, if at all, under Section 125, which also requires deliberate non-compliance (paras 8–10); it further observed that the U.P. authorities had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a breach of Rule 46 by a supplier registered in Maharashtra (para 10), and dismissed the departmental appeal. GSTAT · Hyderabad ● Allowed Sain Medicaments v Commissioner of Central Tax Hyderabad & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3241-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST 30 October 2026 In Sain Medicaments Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad, 2026-juristway.com-3241-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST , where transitional credit of Rs. 12,91,000 carried forward in Table 5(a) of TRAN-1 was disallowed under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 140(1) because the ER-1 return for April 2017 was not filed, although the department accepted that repeated attempts failed owing to ACES portal glitches, that the appellant wrote to the Range Superintendent on 12.05.2017 and raised CBIC-Mitra tickets, that the May and June 2017 returns were filed in time and that the April 2017 return was ultimately filed on 27.08.2022, and the SCN dated 31.01.2022 invoked Section 74(1) but proposed penalty under Section 122(2)(a) while the OIO dated 29.09.2023 and the OIA dated 31.05.2024 imposed 100% penalty under Section 74 read with Section 122(2)(b), the Tribunal held that the orders travelled beyond the SCN contrary to Section 75(7), the SCN itself being self-contradictory, following Armour Security (paras 10.3–10.6); that the clause targets negligent taxpayers who abandon filing, and the appellant, prevented by the department's own portal, complied at the first opportunity, so the credit could not be denied (lex non cogit ad impossibilia; Indian Seamless Steel; Johnson Matthey Chemicals; Sowmiya Spinners) (paras 11.2–11.5); and that no foundational facts of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression were pleaded, the facts being within the department's knowledge, so Section 74 could not be invoked (paras 13.0–14.0); the OIA was set aside with consequential relief. GSTAT · Hyderabad ● Allowed Innominds Software Private Limited v The Commissioner of State Tax, Commissioner, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department C.T Hyderabad & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3240-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST 30 October 2026 In Innominds Software Private Limited v. Commissioner of State Tax, 2026-juristway.com-3240-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST , where, for July 2017 to March 2018, a demand of Rs. 68,52,254 for ITC in GSTR-3B not reconciled with GSTR-9/GSTR-2A, out of Rs. 75,04,688 proposed in the SCN dated 13.11.2021, was confirmed by OIO dated 08.12.2023 and upheld by OIA dated 22.11.2024 solely for want of the certificates under Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, the difference arising because IGST charged by an SEZ unit, M/s. Innominds Software SEZ India Pvt. Ltd., on Invoice Nos. IMSEZ484MAR1718 and IMSEZ502MAR1718 dated 30.03.2018 was availed as CGST and SGST, the Tribunal, following Bhandari Scrap Traders on the validity of Section 16(2)(c), held that the burden under Section 155 was discharged since the invoices, receipt of services and payment were undisputed and the IGST was reflected in GSTR-2A (paras 8.2–9.11); that the Circular's certificate verifies Section 16(2)(c) and is not an additional condition, and was not even engaged as none of its four scenarios applied (paras 10.5–10.12); and that, following Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex, availing IGST credit under the wrong heads is not credit "wrongly availed" under Section 73, the SEZ status of the supplier making no difference, while Section 77 and the settlement rules did not support the demand (paras 13.0–14.14); the OIA was set aside with consequential relief, including refund of the pre-deposit of Rs. 6,85,226 with interest under Section 115 (paras 17.0–18.4). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Remanded Belgaum Ferro Cast (India) (P) Ltd, Belagavi v Satish P Kelavadi, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka Bengaluru. 2026-juristway.com-3225-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 30 October 2026 In Belgaum Ferro Cast (India) (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, 2026-juristway.com-3225-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where, following an audit report dated 16.02.2023 and a show cause notice dated 30.06.2023, excess ITC of Rs. 7,37,165 (IGST Rs. 78,823; CGST and SGST Rs. 3,29,171 each) for FY 2018-19 was confirmed with interest of Rs. 5,97,105 and penalty of Rs. 73,716 by an order dated 30.09.2023 passed without personal hearing, on the basis that GSTR-3B ITC of Rs. 7,21,65,748 (after excluding RCM credit of Rs. 5,24,259) exceeded the Rs. 7,14,28,585 in GSTR-9, and the first appeal was dismissed on 26.05.2025 while a rectification application dated 26.10.2023 was later rejected by order dated 05.06.2025, the Tribunal held that Section 75(4) confers a separate right of hearing that a written reply does not displace and the defect was not cured in appeal (paras 4.3–4.5); that the adjudication suffered from three infirmities, namely assuming without verification that RCM credit sat in Table 4(A)(5), recording an admission of excess credit that the record did not show, and rejecting the plea of error in GSTR-9 without examining the books, the correct Table 6B comparison itself yielding Rs. 6,67,890 and the parties' copies of GSTR-9 differing (paras 4.14–4.20); and that, while a bona fide return error must be recognised (Aberdare Technologies), the appellant bears the burden under Section 155 (paras 4.22–4.31); the adjudication order, OIA and rectification order were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication confined to the show cause notice and its amounts, with the appellant to produce its books and returns within thirty days and an order to issue within three months. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Oxino Peb Pvt Ltd, Palakkad v Commissioner of SGST, Keralam. 2026-juristway.com-3224-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 30 October 2026 In Oxino PEB Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of SGST, Keralam, 2026-juristway.com-3224-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST , where a consignment of 21,800 kg of HR sheets moving under Invoice No. KSB/72L/HR/447 and an e-way bill from M/s Kummenchery Steels to the appellant was intercepted at 4.15 p.m. on 17.07.2020 while being unloaded at the premises of M/s Vera Display and Storage Products Pvt. Ltd., Kanjikode, a job worker, an e-way bill for that job-work movement was generated at 7.20 p.m. the same day, and tax and penalty of Rs. 77,323 each under CGST and SGST were confirmed by OIO dated 18.08.2020 and upheld by Order-in-Appeal No. GSTA 93/2020 dated 18.12.2021, the Tribunal held that the notice in Form GST MOV-07 did not specify any provision of the Act or Rules contravened, which is a sine qua non for Section 129(1), so that, applying Armour Security, the proceedings were void and the OIO, which relied on provisions never put to the appellant, breached natural justice (paras 5.1–5.2); that the OIO itself accepted the movement as job work and did not doubt the documents, its speculation of a taxable sale being unsupported (paras 6.1–6.2); and that since goods sent for job work under Section 143 bear no tax, no penalty measured by tax payable can arise (paras 7.1–7.5), drawing support from T.P. Metals & Roofings; both questions of law were answered in the negative and the appeal allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed S.N. Stores v The Commissioner of Kerala State GST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3223-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In S.N. Stores v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3223-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where a dealer in cigarettes reported compensation cess of Rs. 6,55,544.24 in Table 7 (B2C) of its GSTR-1 for January 2019 but declared and paid cess of Rs. 2,56,350 in GSTR-3B, the taxable value of Rs. 3,00,926 and CGST and SGST of Rs. 37,329.03 each being identical in both returns, and the first appellate authority, rejecting the plea of clerical error "for want of evidences", confirmed cess of Rs. 4,56,952, interest of Rs. 4,10,343 and penalty of Rs. 45,695 (total Rs. 9,12,990), the Tribunal held that the GSTR-1 cess entry did not correspond to any taxable value or tax figure, that the Revenue had neither alleged nor shown suppression of the quantity of cigarettes supplied or short payment of CGST and SGST, and that bald allegations of short payment of cess on such a mismatch could not stand, the adjudicating authority having been bound to examine the plea on facts and condone the mistake (paras 5.0–7.0); the OIA dated 09.01.2026 was quashed and the appeal allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Kurian Abraham Pvt Ltd v The Commissioner of Keralam State GST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3222-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Keralam State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3222-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where a vehicle carrying 36 drums (7,560 kg) of natural rubber latex valued at Rs. 3,85,560 from the estate of Arun Scaria, an agriculturist, to the appellant was intercepted on 04.01.2022 without an e-way bill, the delivery challan No. 001/2021-22 prepared by the appellant on the supplier's behalf bore the GSTIN of an unrelated dealer, M/s. Anku Rubbers, and penalty of Rs. 38,556 was paid the same day and upheld in first appeal, the Revenue additionally objecting that the penalty was below the Rs. 50,000 limit in Section 112(2) and that payment under Section 129(5) concluded the proceedings, the Tribunal held that Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax exempts rubber latex moving from an agriculturist's premises to a registered taxable person under a Rule 55 delivery challan irrespective of value (para 9.0), that the agriculturist's affidavit and Anku Rubber's denial established that the GSTIN was a genuine mistake, the challan being otherwise undisputed (paras 6.0–7.0 and 10.0), and that no penalty could be imposed for a clerical error; the penalty was set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Remanded Rupesh & Company, Kollam v Commissioner of State Taxes Keralam State. 2026-juristway.com-3221-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Rupesh & Company, Kollam v. Commissioner of State Taxes, Keralam State, 2026-juristway.com-3221-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where, on scrutiny under Section 61 for FY 2017-18, a show cause notice dated 06.07.2021 alleged that ITC in GSTR-3B exceeded GSTR-2A, the demand was confirmed by OIO dated 15.01.2022 and partly sustained by Order-in-Appeal GSTA (KLM) 50/2022 dated 09.06.2023, including denial of Rs. 71,157 each of CGST and SGST (Rs. 1,42,314) on supplies from Giant Steels despite the appellate order recording that the supplier had filed returns and paid tax, the Tribunal held that the dispute was squarely covered by Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, applicable to pending appeal proceedings for FY 2017-18 (paras 4.1–4.3), and, the Revenue consenting, set aside the OIA and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to examine it afresh in terms of the circular and the additional evidence, comprising the supplier's GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for August 2017 and the portal's Tax Liability and ITC Comparison. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Remanded Arathy Mobiles, Ettumanoor v Commissioner of State Taxes Keralam State. 2026-juristway.com-3220-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Arathy Mobiles, Ettumanoor v. Commissioner of State Taxes, Keralam State, 2026-juristway.com-3220-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where ITC claimed by a mobile phone dealer for FY 2017-18 in excess of GSTR-2A was demanded by an order under Section 73(9) dated 07.02.2022, and the first appeal was dismissed by Order-in-Appeal No. GSTA16/22 dated 22.11.2022, the shortfall having arisen because supplier Red Marketing, Kuravilangad mentioned another taxpayer's GSTIN in its GSTR-1, the Tribunal held that the dispute was squarely covered by Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022, para 6 of which applies the instructions to FY 2017-18 cases where adjudication or appeal proceedings are pending, that its benefit could not be extended below only because it was issued after the first appeal (paras 4.1–4.3), and, both sides consenting, set aside the OIA and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration in terms of the circular and the documents produced, after following natural justice. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Ben Medicals v The Commissioner of Kerala State GST. 2026-juristway.com-3219-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Ben Medicals v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3219-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where ITC of Rs. 1,12,264 for FY 2017-18 was disallowed on a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A comparison (ASMT-10 dated 05.03.2020, SCN dated 30.07.2021, OIO dated 27.06.2022, OIA dated 26.11.2022) although the pharmaceutical dealer had explained that suppliers reported the supplies as B2C, the proprietor died on 17.12.2022, the registration was cancelled and the business discontinued, and the second appeal was filed by his son as legal heir, the Tribunal held that under Section 93(1)(b), where business is discontinued, liability can be pursued only against the legal representative and only out of the estate (paras 8.0–9.0), that the Revenue had issued no notice to the heir and made no inquiry into any estate for over three years, and that, as consistently held by the High Courts, no proceedings can be conducted against a deceased person (paras 10.0–12.0); it further held on merits that supplier certificates confirming payment of tax on the invoices, uncontroverted by the Revenue, established eligibility (para 13.0), and declared the entire proceedings null and void, quashing the OIA and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Partly Allowed Devasurya Traders v The Commissioner of Kerala State GST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3206-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Devasurya Traders v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3206-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where a dealer in waste paper and scrap carried forward Rs. 2,60,416.79 as SGST credit in TRAN-1, comprising Rs. 84,500 claimed as the KVAT balance as on 30.06.2017 and Rs. 1,75,916.79 being VAT on a truck chassis with engine valued at Rs. 12,13,219.21 purchased under Invoice No. VES/17-18/0118 dated 02.06.2017, and the JC (Appeals) by order dated 27.06.2024 upheld rejection of both on the ground that the capital goods credit was not reflected in Part E of the VAT return and no Form 25 application was filed within 30 days, the Tribunal held that the June 2017 KVAT return showed 'NIL' balance at credit and the Rs. 84,500 claim was rightly disallowed (para 6.0); that the truck, already declared in Part C of the June 2017 return, could be put to use only after body-building, by which time the GST regime had commenced and TRAN-1 was the only route, Section 140 attaching no further condition (para 7.0); and that, following P.K. Joseph, the 30-day period under Section 11(2) of the KVAT Act runs from commercial use, so the absence of Form 25B before 30.06.2017 does not negate substantive entitlement and the appellant had been made a victim of procedure (paras 8.0–9.0); the OIA was set aside to the extent of Rs. 1,75,916.79 with consequential relief and the appeal partly allowed. 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). Load more
