SC ● Remanded Senior Intelligence Officer v Mohammed Kamran 2026-juristway.com-3023-SC-GST 16 October 2026 In “Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran, 2026-juristway.com-3023-SC-GST” , where the proprietor of M/s MK Traders, arrested on 16.09.2025 on a complaint alleging fake invoices and fraudulent ITC under Sections 132(1)(b), (c) and (f), obtained bail from a Single Judge on 26.12.2025 in a petition listed during the winter vacation on his memo although the Department had been given two weeks to object, and had meanwhile pursued bail before the Sessions Court and release in a writ petition in which ad-interim relief was refused on 22.12.2025 without disclosing these to the bail court, the Court, after viewing the recording of the hearing, found that the Department’s counsel had sought an adjournment and then assisted the court, but held that the respondent had engaged in forum shopping, suppressed material facts and lacked uberrima fides. Without cancelling bail outright, it set aside the disposal of the criminal petition, revived it before the same Single Judge to be decided on merits preferably by the end of the year, continued the respondent on interim bail on earlier terms, and allowed the Department two weeks to file a counter affidavit. GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Partly Allowed Deltron (A Division of Continental Device India Private Limited) v Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Ludhiana, Commissioner, Ludhiana & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3022-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Deltron (A Division of Continental Device India Private Limited) v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Ludhiana & Others, 2026-juristway.com-3022-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST” , where transitional credit of Rs. 9,89,849 claimed in TRAN-1 — Rs. 2,90,845 of CVD and additional duty on capital goods imported before but received after 01.07.2017 under Table 6(a), and Rs. 6,99,004 of excise duty paid on goods cleared for export on 29.06.2017 under Table 7(a) — was disallowed with interest and penalty of Rs. 98,985 and upheld on 14.10.2025, the Tribunal, relying on the Explanation to Section 140(2), Rule 117(2)(a), the CBIC FAQ and Circular No. 182/14/2022-GST, allowed the capital goods credit as admissible under both regimes; but held that no provision of Section 140 covers excise duty on export clearances, Table 7 relates to inputs in stock, recovery lies under the GST law, and Adfert Technologies, Tara Express and Circor Flow were distinguishable. The appeal was partly allowed, with interest recalculated and penalty reduced to Rs. 69,900. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Chennamkudiyil Timbers, Ernakulam v The Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Keralam State, Thiruvananthapurm 2026-juristway.com-3021-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Chennamkudiyil Timbers, Ernakulam v. The Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, 2026-juristway.com-3021-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where an order under Section 73(9) for 2017-18 confirmed Rs. 62,628 for ITC not reflected in GSTR-2A, Rs. 97,458 on a sales return unsupported by portal-declared debit notes, and interest of Rs. 1,54,314 for belated filing, and the first appellate authority rejected five pages of submissions in a single line, the Tribunal held the appellate order non-speaking and, deciding on merits, found it undisputed that output tax of Rs. 99,449.20 had been paid in excess against an ITC shortfall of only Rs. 31,313 each under CGST and SGST, so that, applying the reasoning in Rejimon, there was no short payment; that the Revenue’s insistence on a separate refund to test unjust enrichment failed as Section 54(8)(c) takes such refunds outside that test; that the sales-return demand was confirmed on a ground outside the notice and portal declaration of credit/debit notes was not mandatory in 2017-18; and that the interest demand was vague and inconsistent between notice and order. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Sansco Technologies (Kerala) Private Limited v The Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram 2026-juristway.com-3020-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Sansco Technologies (Kerala) Private Limited v. The Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram, 2026-juristway.com-3020-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where the super distributor of Oppo mobile phones in Kerala was served a notice dated 22.07.2023 alleging excess ITC of Rs. 13,97,613 for 2017-18 on a head-wise comparison of GSTR-2A with GSTR-3B, the demand was confirmed on 14.12.2023 without hearing and upheld on 06.06.2025, and the appellant’s undisputed reconciliation, adding IGST of Rs. 56,31,242 on imports and adopting the latest GSTR-2A, showed aggregate available credit exceeding credit availed by Rs. 45,48,864.70, with shortfalls of Rs. 1,37,242.10 (CGST) and Rs. 1,36,452.71 (SGST) against surplus IGST of Rs. 48,22,559.51, the Tribunal held that Section 49(5)(a) gives the taxpayer a vested right to use surplus IGST towards CGST and SGST, that Rejimon and the decisions following it bind the Bench, that no short payment arose to attract Section 73, and that the original order passed without hearing and the mechanical appellate order violated natural justice; contentions under Sections 16(2)(c) and 155 were irrelevant as the notice made no such allegation. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Remanded RLCR 7super Market v Sunil N Ranote, Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3019-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 16 October 2026 In “RLCR 7 Super Market v. Sunil N. Ranote, Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh & Others, 2026-juristway.com-3019-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST” , where, after an audit for July 2017 to March 2022, a consolidated notice dated 30.09.2023 led to confirmation of Rs. 3,46,343 under Section 74 on GSTR-3B versus GSTR-2A excess ITC of Rs. 1,54,194 claimed to relate to the previous year, IGST of Rs. 1,52,088 where deposits were made under other heads, and Rs. 28,474 of ITC availed under wrong heads, upheld in appeal on 16.02.2026, the Tribunal rejected the challenge to the consolidated notice and order; held that the appellate authority had not disputed admissibility of prior-year ITC on law and the appellant must be allowed to prove its claims on all three counts before the adjudicating authority; and, applying Tata Steel, held that paragraph 15 of the notice contained only a generic recital without foundational facts of fraud or suppression. Demand and penalty under Section 74 were set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination under Section 75(2) as if under Section 73, with interest under Section 50 to follow the tax found payable. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed The Commissioner of CGST & CE Kochi v Parthas Textiles 2026-juristway.com-3018-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi v. Parthas Textiles, 2026-juristway.com-3018-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where an audit demand for July 2017 to March 2021 against a textile retailer was confirmed on 27.12.2023 and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Kochi, by order dated 07.11.2024, partly allowed the appeal by directing the Deputy Commissioner to examine reconciliations of GSTR-2A versus GSTR-3B, RCM payments and blocked credit and delete the demand to the extent found admissible, the Tribunal, with the taxpayer’s consent, held that such reference back is expressly barred by Section 107(11), which empowers the appellate authority to make further inquiry itself, set aside the order-in-appeal and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to decide afresh on its existing findings, without referring it to the adjudicating authority, within eight weeks. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Shri Traders, Palakkad v The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi 2026-juristway.com-3017-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Shri Traders, Palakkad v. The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi, 2026-juristway.com-3017-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where the show cause notice dated 20.11.2023 for 2018-19 proposed disallowance of IGST credit of Rs. 6,93,806 on six invoices because the suppliers had not filed GSTR-3B, invoking Section 16(2)(aa), the appellant pointed out that the provision commenced only on 01.01.2022, and the order dated 03.04.2024 confirmed the demand by finding that the suppliers had not paid the tax under Section 16(2)(c), which the first appellate authority upheld treating the reference to Section 16(2)(aa) as a patent error, the Tribunal held that the notice charged only non-compliance with Section 16(2)(aa) and the reproduction of the whole of Section 16 did not put the appellant on notice of any contravention of Section 16(2)(c); that, following Armour Security and Brindavan Beverages, the demand was confirmed on a ground outside the notice in breach of Section 75(7); that ITC Ltd. concerned non-mention of a sub-clause and Pradyumna Steels and Merino Panel concerned citation of the wrong source of a power, not culpability on an uncharged ground; and that Section 160(1) did not apply. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Singapore Airlines Ltd. v The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi 2026-juristway.com-3016-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 16 October 2026 In “Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi, 2026-juristway.com-3016-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST” , where the appellant filed eight refund claims aggregating Rs. 45,92,528 for October 2019 to March 2020, January 2021 and March 2021 on unabsorbed credit notes for tickets cancelled during COVID-19, sold largely through IATA agents and settled via the Billing Settlement Plan, and the claims were rejected for want of proof of excess payment and of refund to passengers and the common Order-in-Appeal dated 08.12.2022 further held them time-barred under Section 34(2), the Tribunal found that the refund voucher, tax invoice and credit note for each ticket are linked by ticket number and passenger name, that refunds were processed in line with the Supreme Court’s directions in Pravasi Legal Cell, that Circular No. 137/07/2020-GST permits a claim as excess payment where no output liability exists to absorb credit notes, that the transactions were B2C, and that the ITC-reversal proviso in Section 34(2) was inserted only from 01.10.2025. The order-in-appeal was set aside and all eight appeals allowed, with refunds to be processed within two weeks with interest from the dates of the original applications. HC · Allahabad ● Partly Allowed M/s Unique and Divine Eternity v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3015-HC(Allahabad)-GST 15 October 2026 In “M/s Unique and Divine Eternity v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Others, 2026-juristway.com-3015-HC(Allahabad)-GST” , where the petitioner’s registration was suspended on a show cause notice dated 27.04.2026 that merely quoted statutory provisions and cancelled on 01.06.2026, the Department placed additional inputs before the appellate authority by letter dated 14.07.2026, the petitioner objected on 17.07.2026, and the appeal was rejected on 20.07.2026 without hearing on those objections, the court, confining relief to the appellate order, held that once material not forming part of the original proceedings is introduced and objected to, the affected party must be heard, following Mahaveer Trading Company, and that Anandeshwar Traders and Khan Enterprises hold that Rule 112 does not permit the Department to adduce additional evidence; the appellate order was set aside and the appeal remitted for a fresh order within two months. GSTAT · New Delhi ● Allowed Jai Maa Enterprises v Assistant Commissioner (L & J) & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3014-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST 15 October 2026 In “Jai Maa Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (L & J) & Others, 2026-juristway.com-3014-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST” , where the appellant sought to delete “Sandeep Bansal”, inadvertently named as respondent No. 5, and after a defective substitution filed an affidavit seeking to implead the jurisdictional tax authority, the Tribunal, the Department having no objection, allowed the application, directed that the respondent be read as “Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi West Commissionerate, Mundka Division”, and required an amended memo of parties within three days. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed Aparnaa Fashions Fabrics Through its Proprietor Shri Anil Kumar Khemka v The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue State Tax, Kolkata, The Joint Commissioner of Revenue State Tax, Kolkata 2026-juristway.com-3013-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 15 October 2026 In “Aparnaa Fashions Fabrics, Through its Proprietor Anil Kumar Khemka v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Kolkata & Another, 2026-juristway.com-3013-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST” , where a Section 73 demand for short payment of GST for 2018-19 of Rs. 29,246 each under CGST and SGST was confirmed with interest and penalty and upheld by the first appellate authority on 30.04.2025, and the appellant, having since paid the tax, contended that penalty was arbitrary absent conscious disregard of obligations, the Tribunal held that Hindustan Steel was distinguishable on facts, that interest follows the delayed payment and that failure to pay tax with interest within thirty days of the notice attracts penalty under Section 73(9), and dismissed the appeal. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Deepsikha Residency v The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) Durgapur Zone 2026-juristway.com-3012-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 15 October 2026 In “Deepsikha Residency v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal), Durgapur Zone, 2026-juristway.com-3012-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST” , where tax of Rs. 7,86,524 with interest and penalty was demanded under Section 73 for 2019-20 from a developer of a residential apartment at Kenduadihi, Bankura, at 18% under reverse charge for not procuring 80% of inputs and input services from registered suppliers under Notification No. 3/2019-Central Tax (Rate), and the appellate authority rejected the appeal for non-production of documents, the Tribunal, with the Revenue’s consent, set aside the appellate order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority, directing the taxpayer to file the documents with a list to be acknowledged under seal and the authority to pass a reasoned order within six months after hearing. GSTAT · New Delhi ● Dismissed Laldeo Rajak v Kanthwal Services, Proprietor 2026-juristway.com-2983-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST 15 October 2026 In Laldeo Rajak v. Kanthwal Services, Proprietor, 2026-juristway.com-2983-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST , where the Department appealed the OIA which had reduced the interest liability for FY 2017-18 from Rs. 73,95,561 to Rs. 40,47,151 by computing interest only to the date of challan credit rather than the date of return filing, and the respondent cross-objected seeking further reduction and deletion of penalty of Rs. 45,829, the Tribunal held on Issue I that the tax demand of Rs. 4,58,289 was correctly set aside since DRC-03 was filed before the OIO was passed; on Issue II that interest under Section 50(1) ceases to run once tax stands credited to the Government’s account through PMT-06, following Arya Cotton Industries (Gujarat HC), Eicher Motors (Madras HC), Vishnu Aroma Pouching (Gujarat HC), Symphony Ltd. (Gujarat HC) and Bangalore International Airport (Karnataka HC); on Issue III that the balance interest of Rs. 25,47,151 (after crediting Rs. 15,00,000 already paid) was correctly quantified; and on Issue IV that the penalty of Rs. 45,829 was rightly imposed since payment was made outside the Section 73(8) thirty-day window. Both the Department’s appeal and the Cross Objection were dismissed. HC · Jharkhand ● Dismissed Md Akhtar Ansari v State of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner of State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, Ranchi, The Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Dhanbad, The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Bokaro, The Assistant Commissioner of SGST, Bokaro Circle 2026-juristway.com-3011-HC(Jharkhand)-GST 14 October 2026 6. LITIGATION DIGEST Litigation Digest: In “Md. Akhtar Ansari v. State of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner of State Tax, Ranchi & Others, 2026-juristway.com-3011-HC(Jharkhand)-GST” , where the petitioner sought quashing of the show cause notice dated 25.11.2024, connected notices and the summary order dated 19.02.2025 under Section 73(9) of the JGST Act, the Division Bench, applying Whirlpool, Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Thansingh Nathmal and Greatship (India), found no case of the notices being ex facie without jurisdiction and dismissed the petition with liberty to reply to the notice and avail statutory appeals, leaving all contentions open. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Mamata Medical Store, M/s Mamata Medical Store First Floor v Union of India and 3 Others 2026-juristway.com-3010-HC(Allahabad)-GST 14 October 2026 In “M/s Mamata Medical Store v. Union of India & 3 Others, 2026-juristway.com-3010-HC(Allahabad)-GST” , where penalty orders under Sections 125 and 127 of the UPGST Act passed on 25.08.2022, 26.08.2022, 27.12.2024 and 13.05.2025 against a medical store run by Mamta Johri were appealed with delay, and the appellate authority rejected the appeals as beyond the power to condone under Section 107 without addressing the ground that her husband was critically ill and died on 27.07.2024, the court, on concession of the parties and confining relief to the appellate orders, set aside the appellate orders, condoned the delay and remitted the appeals for decision on merits within three months, conditional on deposit of Rs. 5,000 in each of the four petitions by 30.10.2026, failing which the benefit would lapse. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Partly Allowed Sandvik Coromant India Private Limited v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka Bengaluru 2026-juristway.com-3009-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 14 October 2026 In “Sandvik Coromant India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bengaluru, 2026-juristway.com-3009-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST” , where an audit-based Section 73(9) order for 2019-20 confirmed tax of Rs. 33,41,760 with interest and penalty on four heads — ITC of Rs. 3,96,226 not in GSTR-2A, Rs. 28,45,515 on 46 e-way bills treated as unaccounted inward supplies with 10% gross profit added as deemed sales, interest of Rs. 27,530 on ITC reversed for a purchase return, and Rs. 99,718 on credit notes not reported in GSTR-1 — and the First Appellate Authority upheld it without examining the reconciliations, the Tribunal, after verifying the documents itself, allowed ITC of Rs. 3,44,974 proved by the supplier’s consolidated invoice, own-entity invoices and Bills of Entry while confirming Rs. 51,255 for four undocumented invoices; set aside the Section 35(6) demand as all 46 e-way bills were traced to accounting entries; deleted the interest and penalty on the purchase-return reversal as the credit ledger never fell below the amount; and set aside the credit-note demand. The appeal was partly allowed. GSTAT · Dehradun ● Allowed Priyaja Dhondiyal v The Commissioner CGST Dehradun, & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3008-GSTAT(Dehradun)-GST 14 October 2026 In “Priyaja Dhondiyal v. The Commissioner, CGST Dehradun & Others, 2026-juristway.com-3008-GSTAT(Dehradun)-GST” , where the appellant had booked a flat in the “Green View Blossom” project of M/s Phoolchand Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., paid Rs. 36,01,875 with CGST and SGST of Rs. 2,16,112.50 each, the tripartite agreement was cancelled and the developer refunded Rs. 35,03,400 without the GST, and her refund application filed on 09.03.2023 under Circular No. 188/20/2022-GST (after a CM Helpline grievance of 23.05.2021) was rejected as time-barred and the rejection upheld on 24.04.2025, the Tribunal held that, counting four months from cancellation to 01.03.2020 and excluding the period up to 28.02.2022 under Notification No. 13/2022, the claim was within two years; that the circular could not be applied retrospectively to prejudice her and in any case squarely covered her; and that the developer’s ledger and Statement 8 satisfied Rule 89(2). Both orders were set aside and refund of Rs. 4,32,225 directed forthwith with interest from sixty days after 09.03.2023. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Partly Allowed M/s. Aditi Enterprises v Brajesh Singh Yadav 2026-juristway.com-3007-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 14 October 2026 In “M/s. Aditi Enterprises v. Brajesh Singh Yadav, 2026-juristway.com-3007-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST” , where certain B2C sales of FY 2020-21 were omitted from monthly GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B through clerical error but recorded in the books and GSTR-9/9C, the appellant voluntarily paid tax of Rs. 2,34,00,000 through DRC-03 on 04.03.2022 before any show cause notice, and interest of Rs. 75,23,100 and penalty of Rs. 23,40,000 were confirmed by the adjudicating authority on 28.02.2025 and upheld in first appeal on 14.11.2025, the Tribunal, noting the Department’s concession that the reconciliation was correct and the tax paid before the notice, held that interest is a statutory consequence of delayed payment but the computation on the entire liability was unsustainable and had to be redone month-wise with reference to due dates, dates of discharge and the electronic ledgers under Rule 88B; and that penalty was not sustainable in view of Section 73(5) and (6). The penalty was set aside and the interest demand remitted for recomputation. HC · Andhra Pradesh ● Partly Allowed M/s. Chairman v The Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Others 2026-juristway.com-2982-HC(Andhra Pradesh)-GST 14 October 2026 In M/s. Chairman v. The Assistant Commissioner State Tax & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-2982-HC(Andhra Pradesh)-GST , where the petitioner, a committee under the Janmabhoomi Programme that had executed de-silting works valued at Rs. 9,23,383, challenged the Section 63 best judgment assessment order dated 29.12.2025 raising a demand of Rs. 44,74,110 (including tax, interest and penalty), the court noted that the exact turnover was not ascertained, the assessment was passed within three days of the final reminder notice, and the petitioner could not file a rectification application electronically as the Department had created a temporary ID without login credentials. The court directed filing of a fresh manual rectification application within two weeks, with stay on coercive steps pending its disposal. HC · Calcutta ● Allowed Permender Singh v Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2981-HC(Calcutta)-GST 14 October 2026 In Permender Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-2981-HC(Calcutta)-GST , where the petitioner, a vehicle owner, challenged the penalty orders dated 15.01.2026 under Section 129(3) confirming penalties of Rs. 12,67,640 and Rs. 12,55,600 for two vehicles intercepted on 11.07.2025 carrying MS Scrap from Guwahati to Purnea, the court found that the MOV-07 notices were served on 17.07.2025 with the statutory seven-day period expiring on 24.07.2025, but the orders were passed only on 15.01.2026 — a delay of 175 days. The Department’s explanation that the delay was on account of proceedings being “sub-judice” before the Gauhati High Court was rejected as the Gauhati court had not stayed Section 129 proceedings and the petitioner was not a party to those proceedings. Following Kedia Enterprises (Patna HC), Khatu Enterprises (Gujarat HC) and Satguru Impex (Tripura HC), the court held the orders barred by limitation and without jurisdiction, and directed release of the vehicles within seven days. HC · Calcutta ● Allowed M/s. A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v The Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2980-HC(Calcutta)-GST 14 October 2026 In M/s. A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-2980-HC(Calcutta)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the demand order dated 27.08.2024 for 2019-20 denying ITC on the ground of belated filing beyond Section 16(4), the court held that Section 16(5) inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 regularises ITC for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 where returns were filed by 30.11.2021, and following its earlier decision in Hiranmoy Dutta, quashed the demand and all consequential orders including the Electronic Credit Ledger blocking and the unauthorised debit of Rs. 1,92,03,770 made during pendency, and directed re-adjudication by 30.11.2026. GSTAT · Visakhapatnam ● Allowed Padala Satyanarayana Reddy v G Ramakrishnaraju Yadav, Joint Commissioner GST Appeals Guntur, Office of Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2979-GSTAT(Visakhapatnam)-GST 14 October 2026 In Padala Satyanarayana Reddy v. Joint Commissioner GST Appeals, Guntur & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-2979-GSTAT(Visakhapatnam)-GST , where the appellant sought refund of excess interest paid under Section 50 for 2017-18 and 2018-19, contending that interest was paid on the entire tax liability including the ITC portion whereas the retrospective amendment to Section 50(1) by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2021 restricts interest to the cash component only with deemed effect from 01.07.2017, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the rejection orders. The Tribunal held that the substituted proviso operates retrospectively from 01.07.2017 regardless of the fact that Notification No. 16/2021 appointed 01.06.2021 as the commencement date for Section 112, and that the original authority’s ground of non-availability of notification at the time of filing was no longer sustainable. The matter was remitted for quantification of the admissible refund within three months, with due consideration to the Covid limitation extension under Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax. GSTAT · Visakhapatnam ● Allowed Maithan Alloys v (Dr. Jean Jesudass Palaparthyirs) Deputy Commissioner, Waltair Ward Visakhapatnam. 2026-juristway.com-2978-GSTAT(Visakhapatnam)-GST 14 October 2026 In Maithan Alloys v. Deputy Commissioner, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam, 2026-juristway.com-2978-GSTAT(Visakhapatnam)-GST , where the appellant, an SEZ unit engaged in export of goods, challenged the rejection of refund claims of unutilised ITC for April, May and June 2022 distributed through an ISD, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both authorities below. Following the Gujarat HC in Britannia Industries Ltd. and SE Forge Ltd. and the Madras HC in Wipro Ltd., the Tribunal held that the second proviso to Rule 89(1) addresses direct supplies to an SEZ unit and cannot be extended to extinguish refund entitlement arising from ITC distributed through an ISD and remaining unutilised against the appellant’s own zero-rated exports. The finding of the FAA that suppliers had already received refunds was rejected as unsupported by evidence, with the Department’s own additional counter acknowledging no evidence was available. The matter was remitted for quantification of the eligible refund within three months. GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Allowed DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC) 2026-juristway.com-2977-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 14 October 2026 In DGAP v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC), 2026-juristway.com-2977-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where the DGAP computed profiteering of Rs. 50,41,44,461 on “Rail Neer” packaged drinking water for 01.07.2017 to 31.05.2020 on the basis that IRCTC did not reduce the transfer price to licensees/sub-licensees commensurate with the reduction in tax rate from approximately 28.75% (Excise + VAT) to 18% GST, the Tribunal rejected all contentions of the respondent — that the MRP was fixed by the Railway Board, that the product was supplied pursuant to a sovereign function under Article 21, that Section 171 does not apply to subsidised or Government supplies, that the investigation period was excessive, and that 7 out of 14 plants commenced post-GST. The Tribunal held that IRCTC had discretion to fix the transfer price and was required to reduce it commensurately, that Section 171 draws no distinction between public and private entities, and that the DGAP’s methodology was correct. Interest at 18% was directed from 28.06.2019 (date of insertion of the interest provision) and penalty of 10% was imposed, waivable if the profiteered amount is deposited within thirty days. GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Dismissed DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v The Anant Raj Corporation Ltd. 2026-juristway.com-2976-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 14 October 2026 In DGAP v. The Anant Raj Corporation Ltd. (TARC Limited), 2026-juristway.com-2976-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where the DGAP initially computed profiteering of Rs. 98,53,322 for the real estate project “MACEO” (RERA No. 63/2017) for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2024, the matter was remanded to the DGAP for re-investigation following the coordinate bench’s direction in Laureate Buildwell and SVP Builders to compute profiteering on actual savings against actual expenses. The DGAP’s supplementary report dated 01.09.2026, based on CA-certified documents and sample procurement invoices demonstrating substantial post-GST cost increases in core construction materials, found that after deducting verified cost escalation of Rs. 3,78,17,556 from the additional ITC savings of Rs. 87,97,609, the net savings were negative at Rs. 2,90,19,947, resulting in nil profiteering. The Tribunal accepted the revised report. Load more
