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 · 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 · 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. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Spandan Electrical v Debabrata Paul, Deputy Commissioner, Srirampur & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2885-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Spandan Electrical v. Debabrata Paul, APL/90/KLK/2026” , where the electrical goods trader challenged the demand of Rs. 3,57,048.18 (tax) plus interest Rs. 4,30,678.93 and penalty Rs. 8,76,998 under Section 74 for FY 2017-18, contending that the identified bank entries were advance receipts from customers without corresponding supply, the Tribunal set aside the FAA’s order for failing to comply with Section 107(12) — no points for determination stated, no reasons recorded, no consideration of the Appellant’s defence — and remanded the matter for fresh hearing and reasoned order within six months. CESTAT · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Victora Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Noida 2026-juristway.com-2884-CESTAT(Allahabad)-GST 09 October 2026 In “M/s Victora Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Noida, ST Appeal No. 21185 of 2018” , where the Appellant’s refund claim of service tax/CENVAT credit was rejected, the CESTAT allowed the appeal following the Larger Bench decision in Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt. Ltd. and subsequent decisions in Asiatic Drugs & Pharmaceuticals, Shakti Pumps, and Yokohama India, holding that refund of service tax paid is admissible in cash under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed M/s. Agrico Organics Ltd. v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka 2026-juristway.com-2883-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 09 October 2026 In “M/s. Agrico Organics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, APL/137/BUR/2026” , where the Appellant (a fertilizer manufacturer in Sindhanur, Karnataka) was denied ITC for July 2017-March 2018 under Section 73 for filing returns beyond the Section 16(4) deadline, the OIA confirmed the demand and bank attachment under Section 79(1)(c) was issued, the Tribunal — applying Section 16(5) retrospectively inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2017 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 (operationalised by Notification No. 17/2024-CT) — found that the Appellant’s returns for the relevant period were filed before 30.11.2021 (the extended deadline under Section 16(5)), set aside the entire demand, directed refund of the amount paid under protest, and ordered release of the bank account. GSTAT · Raipur ● Other Dev Enterprises v Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Dhamtari 2026-juristway.com-2882-GSTAT(Raipur)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Dev Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, APL/D2/RPR/2026” , where the Appellant sought to challenge an OIO dated 29.12.2023 passed under Section 73(9) directly before the GSTAT while the first appeal under Section 107 remained pending, the Tribunal rejected the filing as not maintainable under Section 112(1), holding that the statutory prerequisite of an order under Section 107 or 108 was absent, that filing Form GST APL-01 or pendency of the first appeal does not convert the OIO into a directly appealable order, and that this is a jurisdictional defect incapable of cure by amendment of pleadings or production of documents. GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed Saraswati Motors v Mohammad Yahiya Ansari, Add. Comm. Grade 2 Appeal, (Mobile Squad-3) Prayagraj & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2859-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Saraswati Motors v. Mohammad Yahiya Ansari, APL/6/ALB/2026” , where the Appellant, an authorised Hero MotoCorp dealer, transported six motorcycles valued at Rs. 4,05,138/- to M/s Prakash Motors on 23.11.2021 with a valid e-invoice (No. SM-MC/21-22/1924, carrying IRN, QR code, and individual engine/chassis numbers) but without an e-way bill, was intercepted, and penalty of Rs. 1,77,248/- was imposed under Section 129(3) with the SCN (MOV-07) and order (MOV-09) both issued within 57 minutes of interception without granting any hearing opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, holding that issuing an adverse order within 57 minutes without evaluating the appellant’s explanation violates Section 75(4) and renders the order a jurisdictional nullity, that demanding tax a second time for the same consignment amounts to unconstitutional double taxation, relying on Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC, 2024) and Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC, 2023), and granted liberty to the Department to proceed under Section 122 or Section 125 for the procedural documentation lapse. HC · Kerala ● Dismissed V.P. Sugathan v Travancore Devaswom Board, Devaswom Commissioner, Deputy Devaswom Commissioner Travancore, The Administrative Officer Travancore, State of Kerala, The Special Secretary to Government Revenue (Devaswom) Department, The Secretary to Government Taxes Department Thiruvananthapuram, The Commissioner Commissionerate, GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram, The Commissioner Central GST, Central Excise and Customs, Kochi Commissionerate 2026-juristway.com-2919-HC(Kerala)-GST 08 October 2026 In V.P. Sugathan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2026-juristway.com-2919-HC(Kerala)-GST , the petitioner, a successful tenderer for collecting fees for Chendamelam performances at Erumeli, challenged the restriction on collecting an additional Rs. 9/- (18% GST) over the prescribed fee of Rs. 50/- per artist per performance. The court held that the liability to pay GST is statutory but the right to recover it from the recipient is contractual; since the tender terms prescribed the fee as inclusive of all taxes, the petitioner had no enforceable right to charge any amount over and above Rs. 50/-. The claim for reimbursement from the Devaswom Board was also rejected. The writ petition was dismissed. HC · Allahabad ● Disposed of M/s Laxmi Narayan Gupta v State of U.P and 3 Others 2026-juristway.com-2917-HC(Allahabad)-GST 08 October 2026 In M/s Laxmi Narayan Gupta v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-2917-HC(Allahabad)-GST , the second round of litigation challenging the adjudication order dated 30.06.2026, the court noted that the adjudicating authority denied cross-examination of revenue officers on the unsustainable ground of immunity under Section 157. However, the court held that this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that cross-examination must have been granted. The writ petition was disposed of with direction to file appeal within four weeks, without objection as to limitation, keeping all issues open including the cross-examination question. HC · Calcutta ● Allowed Mihir Kumar Biswas v Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Krishnanagar Charge & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2881-HC(Calcutta)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Mihir Kumar Biswas v. Asst. Commissioner of Revenue, WPA 27133 of 2026” , same pattern as cases 2864 and 2879 — SCN dated 22.12.2023 uploaded under “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, ex parte order dated 18.04.2024, appeal dismissed on limitation dated 07.07.2026, all quashed with direction to revisit on merits within 12 weeks. HC · Calcutta ● Allowed Sheela Foam Limited & Anr. v The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Shibpur Charge & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2880-HC(Calcutta)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Sheela Foam Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, WPA 27515 of 2026” , where the SCN dated 06.03.2025 under Section 74 and the adjudication order dated 04.08.2025 were uploaded only under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab with personal hearing fixed on the due date of reply, the Court quashed the order and directed fresh reasoned adjudication within 12 weeks after hearing. HC · Calcutta ● Allowed M/s. Vibrations & Ors. v The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Chandni Chawk & Princep Street Charge, & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2879-HC(Calcutta)-GST 08 October 2026 In “M/s. Vibrations & Ors. v. Asst. Commissioner of Revenue, WPA 12360 of 2025” , where the SCN dated 05.04.2023 was uploaded under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, the ex parte adjudication order dated 10.07.2023 and appellate order dated 11.12.2024 (dismissing the appeal on limitation) were passed, the Court quashed all orders and the SCN, directed fresh SCN within two weeks and fresh reasoned order within 12 weeks after hearing. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Ast Pipes Limited v Union of India and Another 2026-juristway.com-2878-HC(Allahabad)-GST 08 October 2026 In “M/s AST Pipes Limited v. Union of India, Writ Tax No. 3933 of 2026” , where the OIO dated 10.11.2023 under Section 74 confirmed tax of Rs. 3,17,414/-, penalty of Rs. 47,612/-, transitional credit demand of Rs. 3,25,972/- and equal penalty plus interest, but the DRC-07 showed tax demand of Rs. 6,43,386/- (a discrepancy), and the Adjudicating Authority rejected the Section 161 rectification application dated 10.09.2026, the Court set aside the rectification order and remitted the matter for fresh determination, holding that the discrepancy between the OIO and DRC-07 is an error apparent on the face of record under Section 161. GSTAT · Agra ● Remanded Jitendra Kumar v M/s. D.K. Enterprises, Proprietor 2026-juristway.com-2877-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Jitendra Kumar v. M/s. D.K. Enterprises, APL/219/AGR/2026” , where 81 e-way bills of the Respondent for FY 2020-21 were found cancelled and the Department proceeded under Section 73 on the premise that the cancellation indicated unrecorded outward supplies, the FAA set aside the demand for lack of verification, and the Department appealed, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Adjudicating Authority to verify from the GST/e-way bill portal whether the cancelled e-way bills were actually used for transportation, whether fresh e-way bills were generated, and to determine the actual tax liability after affording hearing. Load more
