GSTAT · Bengaluru M/s Sri Subramanya Stores v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka 2026-juristway.com-2954-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 14 October 2026 GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Remanded Neelima Goenka v Commissioner, Commissioner State Tax Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2953-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 14 October 2026 In Neelima Goenka v. Commissioner, State Tax Lucknow & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-2953-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where the appellant, a trader operating as M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises, challenged the OIA dated 11.07.2022 upholding the OIO dated 22.12.2020 under Section 73 confirming demand of CGST Rs. 68,880.96 and SGST Rs. 68,880.96 with interest and penalty for alleged wrong availment and utilization of ITC of Rs. 1,37,761.92 based on mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B for April 2019 — the appellant having claimed total ITC of Rs. 1,62,818 against available ITC of Rs. 25,056 in GSTR-2A — the Tribunal admitted the appeal for hearing and remanded for fresh consideration with proper opportunity, noting that both the OIO and OIA were passed ex parte. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed Santosh Jaiswal v Madanlal Murarilal 2026-juristway.com-2952-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 14 October 2026 In Santosh Jaiswal v. Madanlal Murarilal, 2026-juristway.com-2952-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the Revenue challenged the appellate order allowing refund of accumulated ITC of Rs. 10,75,233 (SGST) for April 2022 to September 2022 under inverted duty structure for a tea trader, contending that input and output were the same commodity (tea at 5%) and Circular Nos. 135/2020 and 173/2022 barred such refund, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as squarely covered by its earlier decision in The Pr. Commissioner v. M/s Tea Linker of Siliguri (APL/25/KLK/2026, decided 03.09.2026). The Tribunal held that the respondent used packaging materials, PET jar containers, and printed flexible packaging materials attracting 18% GST as inputs along with the principal input of tea, and these qualified as “inputs” under Section 2(59). Circular No. 135/2020 was held applicable only to rate-reduction scenarios, and CBIC circulars cannot curtail benefits available under the Act. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate v M/s Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2951-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 14 October 2026 In The Commissioner of CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. M/s Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-2951-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the Revenue challenged the appellate order allowing the respondent’s refund claim of Rs. 28,68,178 (CGST Rs. 18,68,178 + SGST Rs. 10,00,000) for October 2021 to March 2022 on export of tea without payment of tax under Section 54(3)(i), contending that the FAA wrongly excluded credit notes of Rs. 39,58,490 from the adjusted total turnover under Rule 89(4), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the same reasoning as in the companion appeal APL/112/KLK/2026. The credit notes were verified against GSTR-1 statements and the CA certificate, and were issued within the permitted time limit under Section 34(2). The Tribunal held that credit notes reflecting returned or deficient supplies must be deducted from gross turnover for refund computation. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate v M/s Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2950-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 14 October 2026 In The Commissioner of CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. M/s Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-2950-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the Revenue challenged the appellate order allowing the respondent’s refund claim of Rs. 7,20,281 (CGST) for October 2021 to March 2022 under inverted duty structure, contending that the FAA wrongly excluded credit notes of Rs. 39,58,490 from the adjusted total turnover under Rule 89(5), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal found that the credit notes were duly reflected in GSTR-1, matched the CA certificate, and were issued within the time limit under Section 34(2). On plain reading of Section 34(1), a credit note is issued when supply has not been made or goods are returned, and the corresponding value must be deducted from the gross turnover for refund computation. Ignoring credit notes would artificially enhance turnover despite taxable value having been reduced. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed The Pr. Commissioner CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v M/s. Vaishnodevi Buildcon Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2949-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 14 October 2026 In The Pr. Commissioner CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. M/s. Vaishnodevi Buildcon Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-2949-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the Revenue challenged the sanction of refund of accumulated ITC of Rs. 7,04,974 under Section 54(3)(ii) for May 2022 to August 2022, contending that input (boulders/RBM) and output (stone chips/aggregates) were the same commodity under HSN 2517 at 5% GST and the refund was barred by Circular Nos. 135/2020 and 173/2022, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. Following the Delhi HC in Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the Calcutta HC in Shivaco Associates, the Tribunal held that Section 54(3)(ii) uses “inputs” in plural and draws no distinction between principal and ancillary inputs; the respondent also used screening parts, crusher spare parts, conveyor belt parts, vehicle tyres, and lubricants attracting 18% and 28% GST for its manufacturing operations. The Tribunal further held that Circular No. 135/2020 was applicable only to cases involving reduction in GST rate on the same goods over time, not to genuine inverted duty structures, and CBIC circulars cannot override statutory provisions. HC · Gujarat ● Allowed M/s Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v Union of India and Others 2026-juristway.com-2928-HC(Gujarat)-GST 14 October 2026 In M/s Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v. Union of India and Others, 2026-juristway.com-2928-HC(Gujarat)-GST , the petitioner — the apex co-operative society popularly known as AMUL — challenged the Order-in-Original dated 01.01.2025 confirming an IGST demand of Rs. 43,43,12,441/- under Section 74 of the CGST Act for the period July 2017 to March 2019. The demand was raised on the ground that the Federation’s Head Office at Anand had failed to allocate corporate expenditure (advertisement, IT infrastructure, legal fees, salaries) to its branch offices by adopting the cross-charging mechanism, treating the HO and branches as distinct persons under Section 25(4). The court held, following the Delhi HC in Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., that since the petitioner had not issued any tax invoices from HO to its branches, the value of services is deemed Nil under the second proviso to Rule 28(1) as clarified by CBIC Circulars dated 17.07.2023 and 26.06.2024, and no tax liability arises. On Section 74, the court held, following the Supreme Court in Tata Steel Ltd. v. Union of India (2026), that the foundational facts of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression must be evident from the notice itself — mere mechanical recitation is insufficient. The situation was revenue-neutral since any tax paid on cross-charged services would have been available as ITC to the branches. The Order-in-Original was quashed. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Hari Motors v State of U.P. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2948-HC(Allahabad)-GST 13 October 2026 In M/s Hari Motors v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026-juristway.com-2948-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 29.11.2021 under Section 74 for 2017-18, the court noted that the SCN dated 06.02.2021 proposed a tax demand of Rs. 16,20,000 and penalty of Rs. 16,20,000, whereas the impugned order confirmed tax of Rs. 25,28,400 and penalty of Rs. 25,28,400 — far in excess of the proposed demand. The court held this to be in gross violation of the mandatory provision of Section 75(7), which prohibits demand confirmation in excess of the amount specified in the notice, constituting a fundamental illegality and rendering the order without jurisdiction. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication with due opportunity of hearing, to be completed within three months. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s N.K. Traders v State of U.P. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2947-HC(Allahabad)-GST 13 October 2026 In M/s N.K. Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026-juristway.com-2947-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the ex parte adjudication order dated 31.03.2026 under Section 74 for the period June 2019, contending that its application dated 04.03.2024 seeking copies of relied-upon documents and cross-examination of witnesses had remained undecided for nearly two years and the order was suddenly passed at the fag end of limitation, the court set aside the order. The standing counsel fairly conceded the petitioner’s assertions could not be disputed. The court directed that copies of all available RUDs be supplied within two weeks, any RUD not available shall not be further relied upon, the petitioner was granted two weeks thereafter to file a final reply along with cross-examination application if any, and adjudication was to be completed by 31.03.2027. HC · Delhi ● Other Hans Raj Kaushik Prop Kaushik Industries v Union of India, Through Secretary & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2946-HC(Delhi)-GST 13 October 2026 In Hans Raj Kaushik Prop. Kaushik Industries v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-2946-HC(Delhi)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the SCN dated 30.06.2025, the OIO dated 17.12.2025, and a rectification order dated 30.12.2025 imposing penalty under Section 122 of the CGST Act for 2018-19, contending inter alia that the OIO was not effectively served and that two pages were uploaded subsequently on 31.12.2025, the court disposed of the petition with liberty to file a statutory appeal. On pre-deposit, the court held that since the demand was exclusively for penalty and proceedings were initiated before the 01.10.2025 amendment, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the judgment in Gaurav Jain v. Joint Commissioner. Questions relating to validity of service, computation of limitation, applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the jurisdictional competence challenge under Section 122 (not pressed) were left open for the appellate authority. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Santosh Jaiswal v Anand Surana 2026-juristway.com-2927-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 13 October 2026 In Santosh Jaiswal v. Anand Surana, 2026-juristway.com-2927-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , the Department appealed against the FAA’s order setting aside a demand for excess transitional credit of Rs. 21,72,496/- claimed in TRAN-1. The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification by the adjudicating authority but held that the notice under Section 74(1) was not sustainable as mere wrong or incorrect information does not establish charges of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, following the Tribunal’s own decision in CGST Commissioner v. Power Tech Global Pvt. Ltd. (2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 51 (Kolkata)) and the CBIC Instruction No. 05/2023-GST dated 13.12.2023. HC · Madras ● Dismissed R. Devarasan v The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Trichy 2026-juristway.com-2945-HC(Madras)-GST 12 October 2026 In R. Devarasan v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Trichy, 2026-juristway.com-2945-HC(Madras)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the order dated 24.08.2024 imposing interest for belated payment of taxes under GSTR-3B returns for April 2019 to March 2020, contending entitlement to nil or 9% interest under Circular No. 136/06/2020-GST dated 03.04.2020, the court noted that the proposal relating to invalid ITC under Section 16(4) had already been dropped after considering the petitioner’s reply, and the surviving demand related only to interest on belated outward tax payments. The court held that Circular No. 136/06/2020-GST was applicable subject to the condition that tax was paid by filing GSTR-3B by the dates specified in the relevant notifications, and the petitioner having not met those stipulated time limits, the impugned order disclosed no infirmity warranting interference. The writ petition was dismissed. HC · Bombay ● Allowed Bhagyoday Agro Industies v Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise and Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2926-HC(Bombay)-GST 12 October 2026 In Bhagyoday Agro Industries v. Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise, 2026-juristway.com-2926-HC(Bombay)-GST , the petitioner, a cotton trader, challenged the appellate authority’s order dismissing its appeal against a demand of Rs. 14,77,57,828/- for non-payment of GST under RCM on purchase of raw cotton from agriculturists. The court held that no defect memo, notice or opportunity was granted before dismissal, and that the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- already deposited during investigation far exceeded the statutory pre-deposit. The dismissal was set aside with directions for fresh hearing, particularly on the pre-deposit issue. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Complete Surveying Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-2925-HC(Allahabad)-GST 12 October 2026 In M/s Complete Surveying Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-2925-HC(Allahabad)-GST , the petitioner challenged orders under Section 74 for FYs 2019-20 to 2023-24 based on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Good Luck India Ltd. v. Union of India (2026), which relied on the Kolhapur Canesugar Works Constitution Bench, and the CBIC Office Memorandum dated 24.08.2026 accepting the judgment, the court held that proceedings based on the omitted Rule 96(10) (omitted w.e.f. 08.10.2024 without a saving clause) are vitiated. The orders were set aside. GSTAT · Raipur ● Dismissed Sapna Industries v Commissioner of State Tax, Commissioner of State Tax, Department of Commercial Tax (GST), Chhattisgarh 2026-juristway.com-2924-GSTAT(Raipur)-GST 12 October 2026 In Sapna Industries v. Commissioner of State Tax, Chhattisgarh, 2026-juristway.com-2924-GSTAT(Raipur)-GST , the Tribunal dismissed the appeal against a demand of IGST Rs. 76,500/- with interest and penalty arising from two separately generated e-way bills against the same invoices. For Invoice No. 59/2018, the original e-way bill expired without extension and a fresh one was generated two days later, again declaring the origin as dispatch point. For Invoice No. 91/2018, the original e-way bill was extended and Part-B updated multiple times, but a fresh e-way bill was generated after expiry with a new vehicle, renewed full distance and changed GR dates. The Tribunal held that an independently generated e-way bill is a separate statutory declaration of movement, and where two different EBNs are generated on different dates against the same invoice with separate validity periods, they prima facie evidence two movements unless the person asserting continuity establishes it from contemporaneous material. The appellant produced no delivery acknowledgment, transporter statement, toll/GPS trail or recipient confirmation. The appeal was dismissed. GSTAT · New Delhi ● Other MRF Limited v CGST Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Central Commissionerate., Commissioner, Commercial Tax (SGST), Telangana, Hyderabad., Commissioner, Commercial Tax (SGST) Kolkata, West Bengal, Commissioner, Commercial Tax (SGST) Patna, Bihar., CGST Commissioner, Jalandhar Commissionerate., Commissioner, North Commissionerate, Bengaluru., Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, Commissioner, CGST & CE Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 2026-juristway.com-2923-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST 12 October 2026 In MRF Limited v. CGST Commissioner, Mumbai Central and Others, 2026-juristway.com-2923-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST , the President of GSTAT allowed transfer applications filed by MRF Limited for consolidation of eight appeals pending before different State Benches to the Principal Bench, all involving the identical question of law — whether the appellant is entitled to refund of interest paid on the gross GST liability to the extent such interest was paid on the portion of tax discharged through the electronic credit ledger, in light of the retrospective substitution of the proviso to Section 50(1) by the Finance Act, 2021. The transfer was ordered under Section 109(5) read with Notification S.O. 4219(E) dated 17.09.2025. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s V.K. Traders v State of U.P. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2898-HC(Allahabad)-GST 12 October 2026 In M/s V.K. Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026-juristway.com-2898-HC(Allahabad)-GST , the petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Act for the financial year 2018-19. The show cause notice dated 27.01.2024 proposed a tax demand of Rs. 27,51,120/- and penalty of Rs. 0 (zero). The adjudication order, however, confirmed the tax demand as proposed but additionally imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,75,112/- — an amount never proposed in the notice. The court held that Section 75(7) is mandatory and absolutely forbids the adjudicating authority from confirming any demand in excess of the amount proposed. The order was set aside and the matter was remitted with directions to pass a fresh order after granting due opportunity of hearing, within three months. HC · Bombay ● Dismissed Rakesh Rajendra Thakur v The State of Maharashtra 2026-juristway.com-2944-HC(Bombay)-GST 09 October 2026 In Rakesh Rajendra Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra, 2026-juristway.com-2944-HC(Bombay)-GST , where the applicant, a tax consultant, sought anticipatory bail in connection with CR No. 171 of 2026 for offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, the court found that the first informant had paid Rs. 77,22,580 to the applicant for GST payments, of which only Rs. 32,05,448 was actually deposited on the GST portal, and the applicant had fabricated fake GST-R forms to show full payment. The balance of Rs. 45,17,132 was retained and not refunded. Holding the offence to be very serious, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. HC · Allahabad ● Disposed of M/s S.S. Infrazone Private Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Akash Singh v State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2922-HC(Allahabad)-GST 09 October 2026 In M/s S.S. Infrazone Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-2922-HC(Allahabad)-GST , the court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the amended SCN dated 03.10.2026 within two weeks, with liberty to raise all questions of law including jurisdiction. HC · Allahabad ● Disposed of M/s Vinayaka Construction Company Thru. Partner Tarun Raj Chaturvedi v Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi and Another 2026-juristway.com-2921-HC(Allahabad)-GST 09 October 2026 In M/s Vinayaka Construction Company v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-2921-HC(Allahabad)-GST , the court directed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of cancellation within two weeks, and the authority to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. GSTAT · New Delhi ● Dismissed Ram Manohar Meena v SRH Technologies 2026-juristway.com-2920-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST 09 October 2026 In Ram Manohar Meena v. SRH Technologies, 2026-juristway.com-2920-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST , the Department appealed against the FAA’s order setting aside a demand of Rs. 37,184/- (ITC with interest and penalty) for 2018-19. The ITC was denied solely because the supplier’s registration was retrospectively cancelled. The Tribunal held that Section 16(2)(a) requires an invoice “issued by a supplier registered under this Act” and the supplier was registered on the dates of the invoices; retrospective cancellation does not retroactively invalidate invoices. On Section 16(2)(c), the Department admitted at hearing that the supplier had deposited the tax. The Tribunal held that CBIC Instruction No. 02/2022-GST (Annexure B) cannot add to Section 16 a disqualification the statute does not contain. State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading was distinguished as the genuineness of purchases was never put in issue in this case. The appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal noted that appeals involving amounts below Rs. 50,000/- should be filed only after careful scrutiny. HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s S.S. Construction Co. Thru. Authorized Representative Akash Singh v State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2897-HC(Allahabad)-GST 09 October 2026 In M/s S.S. Construction Co. v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026-juristway.com-2897-HC(Allahabad)-GST , the petitioner challenged a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act for the period April 2020 to March 2021 on the ground that it neither contained nor pleaded the necessary ingredients of Section 74. During the pendency of the writ petition, an amended show cause notice dated 03.10.2026 was issued under Section 74, incorporating the allegation of suppression. The court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice as amended within two weeks, and directed the authority to grant a hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, reserving the petitioner’s liberty to raise all questions of law including jurisdiction. SC ● Dismissed The Joint Commissioner of Central Taxes & Ors. v M/s. Krishna Sai Granites India Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2888-SC-GST 09 October 2026 In “The Joint Commissioner of Central Taxes v. M/s. Krishna Sai Granites India Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) Diary No. 37000/2026” , the Supreme Court (J.B. Pardiwala & K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.) dismissed the Revenue’s SLP after condoning delay, finding no good ground to interfere with the common impugned orders of the High Court in WP No. 8499/2024 and WP No. 8500/2024. HC · Gauhati ● Other Smti Gollo Sarah v The Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Arunachal Pradesh, The Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax Arunachal Pradesh 2026-juristway.com-2887-HC(Gauhati)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Smti Gollo Sarah v. Union of India, WP(C)/506/2026” , where the petitioner (proprietor of M/s Sml Builders and Company, Itanagar, GSTIN: 12LWLPS8186F1ZS) could not apply for revocation of GST registration cancellation (cancelled w.e.f. 15.10.2025 for non-filing of returns) as both the Section 30 limitation period and the additional 180 days had expired, the Court — following Gangte Togung (WP(C) No. 380/2026, decided 11.08.2026) and with the Revenue’s consent — directed the Department to intimate outstanding dues and upon payment within 21 days, restore the registration. HC · Delhi ● Other Om Shankar Metal (Through its Proprietor Mr. Sidhant Sharma) v Assistant Commissioner Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate Division Delhi East Delhi CBIC 2026-juristway.com-2886-HC(Delhi)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Om Shankar Metal v. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.(C) 15708/2025” , where the petitioner challenged the ex parte order dated 31.01.2025 under Section 74 claiming non-receipt of personal hearing, and the Respondent produced only its dispatch register (not email communication or postal receipt), the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, holding that the disputed factual question of service of hearing notice should be determined by the Appellate Authority, that the penalty at 100% was confirmed without considering Sections 74(5)-(7) or recording specific findings of fraud/suppression, but these are matters for the Appellate Authority, and granted liberty to file appeal with Section 14 Limitation Act exclusion application. Load more
