GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Subhajit Leather Works v Kamal Puggal, Joint Commissioner CGST & Cx 2026-juristway.com-3317-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Subhajit Leather Works v. Kamal Puggal, Joint Commissioner CGST & CX, 2026-juristway.com-3317-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the appellant claimed refund of Rs. 9,06,045 for April 2021 to March 2022 on supplies to SEZ without payment of tax, but its GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 reported no SEZ supplies and the first appellate authority found its statements contradictory, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench held that the Rule 89(4) formula requires zero-rated supply to be correctly reported in the returns, and noted the appellant's gross negligence in omitting the supplies (paras 6–7). As the claim involved disputed facts and needed reconciliation, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded (paras 8–10). The appellant must file an invoice-wise reconciliation, invoices, shipping bills, Specified Officer endorsements and the LUT within four weeks, and the proper officer must pass a speaking order under Rule 92 within four weeks of the hearing (para 10). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed Atanu Mondal v Jhawar Suppliers 2026-juristway.com-3316-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Atanu Mondal v. Jhawar Suppliers, 2026-juristway.com-3316-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the taxpayer, unable to use the ACES portal, paid the service tax appeal pre-deposit of Rs. 1,10,510 for FY 2015-16 through Form GST DRC-03 on 27.05.2022, paid it again through ICEGATE on 09.04.2024, won the appeal, and claimed refund of the DRC-03 amount on 03.10.2024, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench held that Section 54 did not govern the claim. Following the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Comsol Energy (Special Civil Application No. 11905 of 2020) and decisions on duty paid under mistake of law, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the amount was a pre-deposit for a service tax appeal, not tax under the GST law, so the general law of limitation applied (para 5(I)–(V)). Relying on Suvidhe Ltd. and Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX, the Hon'ble Tribunal also held unjust enrichment inapplicable (para 5(VI)). The order-in-appeal allowing the refund was upheld and the Revenue's appeal rejected (para 5(VII)). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Bengal Spare Parts Supply v M Rahaman, Commissioner of CGST & CX Howrah Commissionerate 2026-juristway.com-3315-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Bengal Spare Parts Supply v. M Rahaman, Commissioner of CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate, 2026-juristway.com-3315-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where an audit notice under Section 74 for FY 2017-18 to FY 2019-20 alleged tax short paid on supplies found in the profit and loss account, the appellant had paid Rs. 19,14,473 before the notice, and the first appellate authority dropped Section 74 only for FY 2017-18 because the accounts for that year alone had been uploaded, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench held that Section 74 failed for the later years too. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Steel Limited, the Hon'ble Tribunal noted that the discrepancy came only from the appellant's own documents, that the appellant was exempt from filing GSTR-9C, and that non-payment before audit is not wilful suppression (paras 8–13). The Section 74 action was quashed, FY 2017-18 was held time-barred, and the matter for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 was remanded for redetermination under Section 73 through Section 75(2), with liberty to seek the benefit of Section 128A (paras 14–15). HC · Madras ● Allowed Nagendran Naveenraj v The Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, The Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchirappalli. 2026-juristway.com-3314-HC(Madras)-GST 05 November 2026 In Nagendran Naveenraj v. The Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, 2026-juristway.com-3314-HC(Madras)-GST , where the petitioner's registration was cancelled on a notice dated 24.05.2025 for not filing returns regularly, and the Government Advocate asked that the conditions in Suguna Cutpiece be imposed, the Hon'ble Madras High Court followed Suguna Cutpiece (W.P. Nos. 25048 of 2021 batch) to maintain consistency (paras 2–4). The petitioner must file pre-cancellation returns with tax, interest and late fee within 45 days, pay without using unutilised ITC, use ITC only after scrutiny and approval, and file post-cancellation returns; registration then revives (para 5). The writ petition was disposed of on those terms (paras 6–7). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Rj Namkinos v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3313-HC(Allahabad)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s Rj Namkinos v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3313-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a notice dated 25.12.2023 for FY 2018-19 called for a reply by 25.01.2024 but showed the hearing details as "NA", and an order under Section 73 dated 30.04.2024 followed the petitioner's reply, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rejected the Standing Counsel's plea that the petitioner could have asked for a hearing (paras 6, 8). Once the notice provides a column for hearing, the authority must fix a date, time and venue. The Section 73 order and the appellate order dated 09.09.2025 were set aside and the matter remitted to the original authority for fresh proceedings (para 9). HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Bansal Sanitary Store v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3312-HC(Allahabad)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s Bansal Sanitary Store v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3312-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where an appeal against a detention order under Section 129(1) dated 03.06.2023 was filed on 07.10.2023 with an application explaining illness from 01.09.2023 to 06.10.2023 by medical certificates, and the appellate authority rejected it on 26.09.2024 for want of power to condone delay beyond 120 days, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the merits should not be throttled on a technicality (paras 9–10). The appellate order did not find the certificates false, and the delay beyond 120 days was only about five days (paras 6, 9). The Hon'ble High Court set aside the appellate order, condoned the delay, restored the appeal, and directed a hearing in the first week of December and a decision by 31.12.2026 (para 11). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Kanha Mentha Traders v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3311-HC(Allahabad)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s Kanha Mentha Traders v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3311-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where ITC of Rs. 6,63,120 on purchases from a supplier whose registration was later cancelled was disallowed under Section 16(2)(c) by a Section 73 order dated 04.01.2022, passed on a notice that fixed 10.11.2021 both for reply and for hearing, and the appeal filed on 03.01.2026 was rejected for delay, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the irregularity began at the notice stage. The Standing Counsel conceded that, under Mahaveer Trading Company (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024), the reply date must precede the hearing date (paras 6, 8–9). With the parties' consent, both orders were set aside and the matter remitted; the petitioner must reply by 18.11.2026, and a hearing is to be fixed in the second week of December 2026 (para 11). The benefit is conditional on deposit of Rs. 5,000 as costs by 13.11.2026, and the order, being by consent, is not a precedent (paras 11(e), 13). GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Josco Gold Corporation Private Ltd v The Commissioner of Kerala SGST Thiruvananthapuram 2026-juristway.com-3310-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 05 November 2026 In Josco Gold Corporation Private Ltd v. The Commissioner of Kerala SGST, 2026-juristway.com-3310-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the Revenue treated sales returns of Rs. 70,29,725 in July 2017 to March 2018 as escaped turnover because Table 5H of GSTR-9 showed no credit notes, and confirmed tax of Rs. 2,10,892, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench set aside both lower orders without reaching the merits. On the first issue, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the order-in-original itself recorded that credit notes existed, which destroyed the notice's foundation, and that its findings on same-day credit notes and excess values under Section 34 were never put to the appellant; with no hearing recorded, the order breached Sections 75(4) and 75(7) (paras 6.3, 6.4(d)–(m)). On the second, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the first appellate authority compounded the error by adding four new grounds, and that Section 107(11) does not permit findings reached without notice to the appellant (para 6.4(c), (n)–(s)). The plea that a full hearing before the Tribunal cures the earlier denial was rejected (para 6.4(u)). The appeal was allowed with consequential relief (para 7). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed M/s Sri Ram Traders v Prakhar Pratap Singh, State Tax Officer, Barabanki & Ors. Quorum 2026-juristway.com-3309-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s Sri Ram Traders v. Prakhar Pratap Singh, State Tax Officer, Barabanki, 2026-juristway.com-3309-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the appellant reversed excess ITC of Rs. 2,30,206 for FY 2020-21 through DRC-03 dated 21.10.2024 before the show cause notice, and the first appellate authority deleted the tax demand of Rs. 11,86,360 but sustained interest of Rs. 1,65,748 and penalty of Rs. 23,620, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench allowed the appeal on both issues. On the first issue, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that Section 50(3) requires utilisation as well as availment, and that Rule 88B(3) and Circular No. 192/04/2023-GST test utilisation by whether the ledger balance falls below the disputed credit (paras 5.2–5.4). A verification report of the State Tax Officer, acknowledged by the departmental representative, showed that the balance always exceeded the disputed amount, so no interest was leviable (paras 5.6–5.8). On the second, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that no independent basis for the residual penalty had been shown once the tax demand was set aside and utilisation was not established (paras 5.10–5.12). The remaining interest and penalty were quashed. GSTAT · Ranchi ● Dismissed Anil Kumar Jha v M/s Tata Steel Limited 2026-juristway.com-3308-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST 05 November 2026 In Anil Kumar Jha v. M/s Tata Steel Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3308-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST , where the first appellate authority dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against a Section 74(3) order dated 02.12.2024 for a delay of six days without a condonation application, and the Revenue nonetheless appealed under Section 112(3) on the ground that the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) had not been made, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench found no infirmity. Para 5 of the first appellate order recorded a challan dated 12.03.2025 for Rs. 41,72,618 as proof of pre-deposit. As the first appeal was dismissed on limitation, the original order remained operative and enforceable, and the Revenue's appeal was uncalled for. The appeal was dismissed. GSTAT · Ranchi ● Dismissed Anil Kumar Jha v AK Traders & Co 2026-juristway.com-3307-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST 05 November 2026 In Anil Kumar Jha v. AK Traders & Co., 2026-juristway.com-3307-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST , where the taxpayer paid the entire tax and part of the interest by DRC-03 dated 11.10.2023, before the DRC-01 dated 03.11.2023 and in response to a recovery letter under Section 79, and the first appellate authority waived penalty, the Revenue appealed under the exclusion clause of Circular No. 207/1/2024-GST, contending that partial payment of interest cannot satisfy Section 73(8) and that penalty under Section 73(9) must follow. The Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench found that the disputed interest was only Rs. 10,321 and that the Department itself reported its payment by DRC-03. Finding no infirmity in the first appellate order, the Hon'ble Tribunal disposed of the appeal on the monetary limit and kept the question of law open for a more appropriate case. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed R.S. Traders v Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Department 2026-juristway.com-3306-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 05 November 2026 In R.S. Traders v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Department, 2026-juristway.com-3306-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the appellant reversed excess ITC of Rs. 3,51,049.36 for FY 2021-22 through DRC-03 dated 27.10.2025 after scrutiny, but contended that sufficient balance had always remained in its electronic credit ledger, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench held that the plea was factually false. The ledger had fallen to nil on several occasions before 27.10.2025, so the excess ITC was consumed in discharging output tax (para 6.2(b)). Interest under Section 50 is compensatory and mens rea is irrelevant, so Raj Iron & Building Materials and Imtiyaz Ahmad did not apply (para 6.2(c)). As the appellant did not appear on four dates, the appeal was decided on record, rejected, and the order-in-appeal upholding interest of Rs. 2,48,600.64 confirmed (paras 6.1, 6.3). GSTAT · Pune ● Dismissed M/s. Reliant Buildup, Sangli v The Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra. 2026-juristway.com-3296-GSTAT(Pune)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s. Reliant Buildup, Sangli v. Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra, 2026-juristway.com-3296-GSTAT(Pune)-GST , where a Sangli contractor charged 12% on works contracts executed in 2018-19 for four co-operative spinning mills sanctioned and funded under a Government of Maharashtra scheme, and an audit-based order under Section 73(9) dated 15.01.2024, as modified on 13.10.2025 by the first appellate authority (which dropped the Section 16(4) demand and the Section 122 penalty), left tax of Rs. 69,62,492 (Rs. 65,43,016 as the 18%–12% differential and Rs. 4,19,476 as credit not reflected in GSTR-2A), interest of Rs. 65,05,878 and penalty of Rs. 6,96,250, the Tribunal, taking the additional grounds and over a thousand pages of annexures on record (para 38), held that the recipients of the supplies were the societies, which invited the tenders, signed the agreements as owners and were billed, the Textile Department and the State-level Monitoring Committee having only sanctioned and supervised the projects (paras 41–49); that the societies were neither set up by statute nor shown to be established by Government, Shapoorji Pallonji not dispensing with that requirement (paras 50–56); that, independently, a factory for spinning yarn for sale is meant for industry and commerce (paras 58–62); that departmental minutes settling a GST component of the price cannot alter a rate notified under Section 9(1), and no estoppel lies against the statute (paras 42–44 and 69); that interest under Section 50(1) is compensatory and the Section 73(9) penalty is fixed by statute (paras 65–71); that the invoices were tax-exclusive, so no cum-tax recomputation arose (paras 72–73); and that the credit failed for want of the supplier certificates contemplated by Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, a remand being declined (paras 74–83); the appeal was dismissed, the demand of Rs. 1,41,64,620 upheld and the amounts paid at the first-appeal stage directed to be adjusted (para 84). HC · Karnataka ● Remanded Sri Mohanraj v Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-57, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru 2026-juristway.com-3305-HC(Karnataka)-GST 04 November 2026 In Sri Mohanraj v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-57, 2026-juristway.com-3305-HC(Karnataka)-GST , where the petitioner's registration was cancelled by order dated 16.03.2024 on a notice dated 05.09.2023 alleging failure to furnish bank account details under Rule 10A, which the petitioner had not seen on the portal, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court quashed the cancellation. The Government Pleader left the matter to the Court, noting that the notice rested only on the Rule 10A default (para 3). The petitioner's readiness to file returns and pay all taxes, interest and penalty persuaded the Hon'ble High Court to restore the proceedings (para 4). The petitioner must file a response with documents by 11.11.2026, and the officer must consider it, the returns filed and the offer to pay, and pass just orders. HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Jeet Agencies Thru. Proprietor Shri Kawal Jeet Singh v State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Deptt. Govt. of U.P. and Another 2026-juristway.com-3304-HC(Allahabad)-GST 04 November 2026 In M/s Jeet Agencies v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3304-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where an order under Section 74 dated 24.06.2026 raised a demand of Rs. 1,10,94,789.16 for FY 2024-25 on a notice dated 20.02.2026 that was not served except on the portal, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rejected the plea that interest absent from the notice offended Section 75(7). Once liability is adjudicated, interest automatically comes into play under Section 50 (paras 4–5). As the petitioner had no opportunity of hearing and the order was recent, the Hon'ble High Court quashed it and directed fresh adjudication after hearing (paras 6–7). By consent, the hearing was fixed for 26.11.2026 at 11:00 am, and the petitioner undertook not to seek an adjournment (para 8). HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Jeet India Private Limited v State of U.P and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3303-HC(Allahabad)-GST 04 November 2026 In M/s Jeet India Private Limited v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3303-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where ex parte orders under Section 74 dated 23.10.2024 for FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 followed notices and reminders that showed the date, time and venue of hearing as "NA", and the appeals were later rejected for delay, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court set aside both sets of orders. The Standing Counsel conceded that no personal hearing was given and that, in the leading petition, the demand of Rs. 19,91,432.08 confirmed under SGST and CGST exceeded the Rs. 9,12,944 proposed in the notice (paras 8–9). The Hon'ble High Court held this a breach of natural justice in both petitions and, in the leading petition, a breach of Section 75(7) (para 12). The Section 74 orders and the appellate orders dated 29.07.2026 and 22.07.2026 were set aside, with liberty to issue fresh notices (paras 14–15). GSTAT · Shimla ● Allowed Veer Plastics Private Limited Unit 4 v Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise Himachal Pradesh Shimla, & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3302-GSTAT(Shimla)-GST 04 November 2026 In Veer Plastics Private Limited Unit 4 v. Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise, Himachal Pradesh, 2026-juristway.com-3302-GSTAT(Shimla)-GST , where the Revenue reclassified the appellant's PP non-woven fabric bags from Heading 6305 (5%) to Heading 3923 (18%) because their basic raw material was PP granules, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the differential demand with interest and penalty, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Shimla Bench decided both issues for the appellant. On the first issue, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal were mechanical and unreasoned, in breach of Sections 75(6) and 107(12), and that the show cause notice itself read as a pre-judged decision (paras 27–31). On the second, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the bags are made from PP non-woven fabric, a textile under Heading 5603 which the Revenue itself accepted, so Notes 1 and 2(p) to Chapter 39 exclude them and Heading 6305 applies (paras 35–37). Raj Pack Well and Mega Flex Plastics were distinguished, Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST was confined to plastic-sheet bags, and unequal treatment of a competitor was held to offend Article 14 (paras 33–34, 38–41). The order-in-appeal was set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief (para 42). HC · Calcutta ● Dismissed Deepak Kumar Daiya v The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3295-HC(Calcutta)-GST 04 November 2026 In Deepak Kumar Daiya v. State of West Bengal, 2026-juristway.com-3295-HC(Calcutta)-GST , where the appellant challenged a Single Judge's order dated 22.10.2026 in WPA 20184 of 2026 refusing to stay or quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 132 and 133 of the WBGST Act, contending that prior sanction of the Commissioner under Section 132(6) was required, that a notification dated 01.09.2022 contemplated prosecution normally only where the amount exceeded Rs. 500 lakh, and relying on Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Deepak Singhal v. Union of India, the Division Bench held that the FIR also alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, so that the rigours of the GST Act did not govern the FIR in its entirety and it could not be held vitiated at that premature stage (paras 6–7), leaving the appellant at liberty to challenge the clubbing of the GST offences without sanction at trial or a later stage under the BNSS; the appeal was dismissed on contest and the Single Judge's order affirmed, the merits being left open (paras 8–10). HC · J&K and Ladakh ● Allowed Som Nath Nagar Mal Th. Partner Sanjay Mahajan v Union of India and Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3294-HC(J&K and Ladakh)-GST 04 November 2026 In Som Nath Nagar Mal v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3294-HC(J&K and Ladakh)-GST , where notices and reminders culminated in an order dated 28.08.2024 under which the petitioner was made to pay tax, interest and penalty aggregating Rs. 98,21,986.38, and its appeal under Section 107 of the J&K GST Act was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner State Taxes (Appeals-I), Jammu on 12.08.2025 solely as time-barred, the petitioner making a limited submission that it had no hearing on the computation of tax or on revocation of registration and the Senior Additional Advocate General fairly conceding that the computation had not been adjudicated, the Division Bench, holding the case squarely covered by the Rajasthan High Court in S. Nabad Ali Mustak Ahmed, which held that the outer limit in Section 107(4) binds the appellate authority but not the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 (paras 5–6), revived the appeal with the delay condoned, directed the parties to appear before the appellate authority on 27.11.2026 and directed it to decide the computation of tax on merits, treating the appeal as filed in time (paras 6–7). GSTAT · Bhopal ● Dismissed Butulu Majhi v Pradhan Traders 2026-juristway.com-3293-GSTAT(Bhopal)-GST 04 November 2026 In Butulu Majhi v. Pradhan Traders, 2026-juristway.com-3293-GSTAT(Bhopal)-GST , where the Department filed an appeal under Section 112(3) on 26.03.2026 against Order-in-Appeal No. BHO-CGST-002-APP-223-online-2024-25 dated 27.12.2024 involving Rs. 2,44,144, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written submissions and replies, and at the final hearing on 02.11.2026 the Department applied to withdraw the appeal because the amount was below the monetary limit, the Tribunal noted that Circular No. 207/01/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024, issued under Section 120 on the recommendation of the GST Council, fixed Rs. 20,00,000 as the limit below which Central Tax officers shall not file appeals before the Tribunal, that the circular was in force when the appeal was filed, and that the authorised representative showed no sufficient reason or exceptional circumstance for filing in breach of it; holding that the Department had wasted the Tribunal's time and put the respondent to unjustified expense, it allowed the withdrawal application with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable to the respondent within one month and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed M/s Ram Niwas Sunil Kumar v Rakhi Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow 2026-juristway.com-3292-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 04 November 2026 In M/s Ram Niwas Sunil Kumar v. Rakhi Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow, 2026-juristway.com-3292-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where, for FY 2018-19, a grocery and spice trader was held to have availed excess ITC on a comparison of GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 with GSTR-2A and a demand of Rs. 6,63,460 (CGST and SGST of Rs. 3,31,730 each) with penalty of Rs. 66,346 was confirmed by Order-in-Original No. ZD0904244821673 dated 30.04.2024 and upheld by Order-in-Appeal No. ZD0901253112112 dated 27.01.2025, the appellant contending that IGST credit of Rs. 6,71,751.50 had been inadvertently reported as CGST and SGST of Rs. 3,35,875.76 each and that credit of Rs. 1,67,790 on purchases of Rs. 33,55,800 from M/s Shree Parasnath Collection, Kamrup, Assam in August 2018 was genuine and reflected in GSTR-2A, while the Revenue found the supplier's GSTR-3B for the period to be nil, the Tribunal held on the first issue that the appellant's figures differed from those in the order and required reconciliation from the original records and the electronic credit ledger (paras 7.3–7.4), and, relying on Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex and the treatment of the ledger as a combined pool in Circular No. 192/04/2023-GST, that the demand could not be sustained merely because credit was reflected under the wrong head (paras 7.5–7.6); on the second issue it held that reflection in GSTR-2A is not conclusive and that, following Maruti Enterprises, Sumetco Alloys and Bhandari Scrap Traders, the conditions of Section 16(2) are cumulative and the appellant had not shown that the tax charged was paid (paras 8–9.1); the appeal was partly allowed, the first issue being remanded for verification and the second rejected. HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Surya Prakash Aroma v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3301-HC(Allahabad)-GST 03 November 2026 In M/s Surya Prakash Aroma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026-juristway.com-3301-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where an appeal against a Section 73 order dated 29.08.2024 for FY 2019-20, raising Rs. 88,06,789 on an ITC mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/2B, appeared on the portal as rejected for delay on 19.05.2025 under Appeal No. AD090525019663X, while the Standing Counsel produced an order dated 16.05.2025 in Appeal No. 2526ABLY000195 and attributed the difference to a wrong upload, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the resulting confusion required a fresh decision after hearing (paras 10–14). The petitioner must file a certified copy of the order by 16.11.2026, the hearing is to be fixed in the week commencing 01.12.2026, and orders are to be passed by 31.12.2026. Neither the APL-02 acknowledgment nor the order dated 16.05.2025 is to stand in the way of a reasoned decision on merits (para 15). GSTAT · Thane ● Dismissed Asish Kumar Pati v Linde India Limited 2026-juristway.com-3300-GSTAT(Thane)-GST 03 November 2026 In Asish Kumar Pati v. Linde India Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3300-GSTAT(Thane)-GST , where a departmental appeal involving Rs. 3,37,176 was sought to be saved from the monetary limit on the ground that the Department had challenged the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in Godrej Boyce (WP No. 3226 of 2019) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on an identical issue, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Thane Bench held that the exclusion in para 4(vi) of Circular No. 207/1/2024-GST was not attracted. Filing a petition in a different case is not a uniform opinion of the Board, which must issue a specific circular guiding field formations to contest the issue on merits. The record also showed no stay of the impugned order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the monetary limit, although the respondent was unrepresented. HC · Himachal Pradesh ● Allowed M/s Greenlam Industries Limited and Another v Union of India and Others 2026-juristway.com-3291-HC(Himachal Pradesh)-GST 03 November 2026 In M/s Greenlam Industries Limited v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3291-HC(Himachal Pradesh)-GST , where three show cause notices dated 25.07.2025 in Form GST DRC-01 were issued to the petitioners under Rule 96(10), and the petitioners, besides challenging its vires, contended that the rule had been omitted by Notification No. 20/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause, so that notices issued thereafter rested on a non-existent rule, the respondents being unable to dispute those facts, the court, extracting the Supreme Court's judgment in Goodluck India (SLP (C) No. 24550 of 2025), which applied Kolhapur Canesugar Works to hold that pending proceedings cannot continue after omission of a rule absent a saving clause or legal device, and Circular No. 264/10/2026-GST dated 26.10.2026 clarifying that the omission is effective retrospectively from 23.10.2017 (paras 6–7), held the notices non est for want of statutory backing and quashed them, the petition being allowed with consequences to ensue (para 8). GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed MPS Steels, Palakkad v The Commissioner of CGST & Ce, Kochi. 2026-juristway.com-3290-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 03 November 2026 In MPS Steels, Palakkad v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi, 2026-juristway.com-3290-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST , where a show cause notice dated 20.11.2023 proposed disallowance of ITC of Rs. 3,06,504 (CGST and SGST of Rs. 1,53,252 each) for FY 2018-19 on invoices of suppliers who had not filed GSTR-3B, invoking only Section 16(2)(aa), the order-in-original dated 03.04.2024 confirmed it under Section 16(2)(c) on the footing that the suppliers had not paid the tax, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), relying on Commissioner of Service Tax v. ITC Ltd. of the Delhi High Court, upheld that part as a mere wrong reference to the provision, the Tribunal held that clause (aa), effective from 01.01.2022, could not govern 2018-19 supplies (para 8.3); that the order-in-original side-stepped that objection and confirmed a charge under Section 16(2)(c) that was never put to the taxpayer, not even at the hearing (paras 8.4–8.7); that ITC Ltd. concerned non-referral of a sub-clause in a notice that otherwise set out the facts and law, whereas this was a wrong referral that left the taxpayer blindsided (paras 8.11–8.12(e)); and that confirmation on grounds other than those in the notice breached Section 75(7), as affirmed in Armour Security following Champdany Industries and Ballarpur Industries (paras 8.12(f)–(i)); interest and penalty fell with the tax (para 8.12(j)), and paras 1, 4 and 6 of the operative portion of the order-in-appeal were set aside with consequential relief. Load more
