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 · 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. 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 · Ernakulam ● Allowed Home Solutions, Palakkad v Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Kozhikode. 2026-juristway.com-3262-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 30 October 2026 In Home Solutions, Palakkad v. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Kozhikode, 2026-juristway.com-3262-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST , where the order-in-appeal dated 26.08.2025 had sustained a demand of Rs. 78,548 (CGST and SGST Rs. 522 each and IGST Rs. 77,504), interest, and penalty of Rs. 40,000 for ITC on supplier invoices, the appellant contending that the IGST related to invoices dated 27.03.2018 and 31.03.2018 for goods received in April 2018 and that Rs. 10,792 each of CGST and SGST had been paid but only Rs. 10,269 appropriated, and the Revenue, after verifying the invoices, the CA certificate with UDIN and the payments through its jurisdictional division, conceded that no tax, interest or penalty remained due, the penalty being unsustainable as tax and interest were paid within the period under Section 73(8), the Tribunal directed appropriation of Rs. 522 each from the amounts paid, held the interest and all penalties, including the IGST penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the same reasoning, unsustainable, and set aside paras 11(i) to 11(iii) of the order-in-appeal with consequential relief (paras 5.2–6.0). 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. Load more
