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 · 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. GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] M/s. Navitas Eduservices Private Limited v Commissioner of CGST, South Delhi. (Vice Versa) 2026-juristway.com-2975-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 14 October 2026 In M/s. Navitas Eduservices Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, South Delhi, 2026-juristway.com-2975-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where five appeals by the taxpayer challenged rejection of refund claims of unutilised ITC aggregating Rs. 1,41,09,366 on account of export of services for various periods from January 2018 to March 2023, and one appeal by the Department challenged the FAA’s remand order, the Tribunal held that services provided by Navitas India to Navitas Australia — including marketing support, managing advisor relationships, student counselling, document vetting, and IT-enabled services — on a cost-plus basis under a principal-to-principal sub-contracting arrangement were export of services and not intermediary services. The Tribunal applied the five-requisite test from CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST and held that a sub-contractor providing the main supply on its own account is expressly excluded from the definition of intermediary, there was no tripartite arrangement, the appellant had no authority to bind Navitas Australia, and the consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange. The Tribunal set aside all impugned orders and directed refund with interest. On the Department’s appeal, the Tribunal held that the FAA’s direction to “reconsider” was in substance a remand prohibited by Section 107(11), allowed the appeal to that extent and remanded to the FAA for fresh decision on merits. GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Allowed DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v Praxis Home Retail Ltd. 2026-juristway.com-2974-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 14 October 2026 In DGAP v. Praxis Home Retail Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-2974-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where the DGAP determined profiteering of Rs. 3,67,88,027 for 15.11.2017 to 30.09.2019 on account of non-passing of the benefit of GST rate reduction from 28% to 18% on modular kitchen components and home retail products, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP report after addressing six issues including the demerger from Future Retail Ltd., the DGAP’s jurisdiction to examine goods beyond the complaint, the methodology for customised supplies, the withdrawal of the complaint, the absence of wilful retention, and the investigation period. The Tribunal directed the respondent to pass on Rs. 21,200 to the identifiable complainant with 18% interest and deposit the balance in the respective Consumer Welfare Funds with 18% interest from the date of collection. No penalty was imposed as the period predated Section 171(3A). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Remanded M/s Sri Subramanya Stores v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka 2026-juristway.com-2954-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 14 October 2026 In M/s Sri Subramanya Stores v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, 2026-juristway.com-2954-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where the appellant, a food-grains trader at APMC Yard, Shivamogga, applied under Section 28 to add a godown as an additional place of business and was rejected solely because the title to the godown and the constitution of the lessor firm (M/s Mani & Co.) were the subject of pending civil suits (O.S. Nos. 208/2019 and 335/2019) filed by a third party claiming co-ownership, the Tribunal set aside both the order in Form GST REG-05 dated 06.10.2025 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 01.04.2026. The Tribunal held that Section 2(85) defines “place of business” by what is done at a place, not by who owns it; that Rule 19 permits rejection only where the amendment is “not warranted” or documents are “incomplete or incorrect”, not because of a pending title dispute; that requiring a civil decree as a precondition effectively decides the very title question the authorities accept they cannot decide; and that the Revenue cannot refuse to record a godown on a ground not in the statute while simultaneously penalising the taxpayer for not declaring it. The matter was remitted to the Proper Officer for fresh decision confined to statutory requirements — a valid lease agreement, one listed ownership document of the lessor, and physical verification — within forty-five days, with specific directions that the application shall not be rejected for pendency of civil proceedings or want of a civil decree. GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Remanded Neelima Goenka v Commissioner, Commissioner State Tax Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2953-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 14 October 2026 In Neelima Goenka v. Commissioner, State Tax Lucknow & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-2953-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where the appellant, a trader operating as M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises, challenged the OIA dated 11.07.2022 upholding the OIO dated 22.12.2020 under Section 73 confirming demand of CGST Rs. 68,880.96 and SGST Rs. 68,880.96 with interest and penalty for alleged wrong availment and utilization of ITC of Rs. 1,37,761.92 based on mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B for April 2019 — the appellant having claimed total ITC of Rs. 1,62,818 against available ITC of Rs. 25,056 in GSTR-2A — the Tribunal admitted the appeal for hearing and remanded for fresh consideration with proper opportunity, noting that both the OIO and OIA were passed ex parte. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed Santosh Jaiswal v Madanlal Murarilal 2026-juristway.com-2952-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 14 October 2026 In Santosh Jaiswal v. Madanlal Murarilal, 2026-juristway.com-2952-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the Revenue challenged the appellate order allowing refund of accumulated ITC of Rs. 10,75,233 (SGST) for April 2022 to September 2022 under inverted duty structure for a tea trader, contending that input and output were the same commodity (tea at 5%) and Circular Nos. 135/2020 and 173/2022 barred such refund, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as squarely covered by its earlier decision in The Pr. Commissioner v. M/s Tea Linker of Siliguri (APL/25/KLK/2026, decided 03.09.2026). The Tribunal held that the respondent used packaging materials, PET jar containers, and printed flexible packaging materials attracting 18% GST as inputs along with the principal input of tea, and these qualified as “inputs” under Section 2(59). Circular No. 135/2020 was held applicable only to rate-reduction scenarios, and CBIC circulars cannot curtail benefits available under the Act. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate v M/s Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2951-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 14 October 2026 In The Commissioner of CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. M/s Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-2951-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the Revenue challenged the appellate order allowing the respondent’s refund claim of Rs. 28,68,178 (CGST Rs. 18,68,178 + SGST Rs. 10,00,000) for October 2021 to March 2022 on export of tea without payment of tax under Section 54(3)(i), contending that the FAA wrongly excluded credit notes of Rs. 39,58,490 from the adjusted total turnover under Rule 89(4), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the same reasoning as in the companion appeal APL/112/KLK/2026. The credit notes were verified against GSTR-1 statements and the CA certificate, and were issued within the permitted time limit under Section 34(2). The Tribunal held that credit notes reflecting returned or deficient supplies must be deducted from gross turnover for refund computation. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate v M/s Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2950-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 14 October 2026 In The Commissioner of CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. M/s Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-2950-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the Revenue challenged the appellate order allowing the respondent’s refund claim of Rs. 7,20,281 (CGST) for October 2021 to March 2022 under inverted duty structure, contending that the FAA wrongly excluded credit notes of Rs. 39,58,490 from the adjusted total turnover under Rule 89(5), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal found that the credit notes were duly reflected in GSTR-1, matched the CA certificate, and were issued within the time limit under Section 34(2). On plain reading of Section 34(1), a credit note is issued when supply has not been made or goods are returned, and the corresponding value must be deducted from the gross turnover for refund computation. Ignoring credit notes would artificially enhance turnover despite taxable value having been reduced. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed The Pr. Commissioner CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v M/s. Vaishnodevi Buildcon Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2949-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 14 October 2026 In The Pr. Commissioner CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. M/s. Vaishnodevi Buildcon Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-2949-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the Revenue challenged the sanction of refund of accumulated ITC of Rs. 7,04,974 under Section 54(3)(ii) for May 2022 to August 2022, contending that input (boulders/RBM) and output (stone chips/aggregates) were the same commodity under HSN 2517 at 5% GST and the refund was barred by Circular Nos. 135/2020 and 173/2022, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. Following the Delhi HC in Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the Calcutta HC in Shivaco Associates, the Tribunal held that Section 54(3)(ii) uses “inputs” in plural and draws no distinction between principal and ancillary inputs; the respondent also used screening parts, crusher spare parts, conveyor belt parts, vehicle tyres, and lubricants attracting 18% and 28% GST for its manufacturing operations. The Tribunal further held that Circular No. 135/2020 was applicable only to cases involving reduction in GST rate on the same goods over time, not to genuine inverted duty structures, and CBIC circulars cannot override statutory provisions. HC · Gujarat ● Allowed M/s Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v Union of India and Others 2026-juristway.com-2928-HC(Gujarat)-GST 14 October 2026 In M/s Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v. Union of India and Others, 2026-juristway.com-2928-HC(Gujarat)-GST , the petitioner — the apex co-operative society popularly known as AMUL — challenged the Order-in-Original dated 01.01.2025 confirming an IGST demand of Rs. 43,43,12,441/- under Section 74 of the CGST Act for the period July 2017 to March 2019. The demand was raised on the ground that the Federation’s Head Office at Anand had failed to allocate corporate expenditure (advertisement, IT infrastructure, legal fees, salaries) to its branch offices by adopting the cross-charging mechanism, treating the HO and branches as distinct persons under Section 25(4). The court held, following the Delhi HC in Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., that since the petitioner had not issued any tax invoices from HO to its branches, the value of services is deemed Nil under the second proviso to Rule 28(1) as clarified by CBIC Circulars dated 17.07.2023 and 26.06.2024, and no tax liability arises. On Section 74, the court held, following the Supreme Court in Tata Steel Ltd. v. Union of India (2026), that the foundational facts of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression must be evident from the notice itself — mere mechanical recitation is insufficient. The situation was revenue-neutral since any tax paid on cross-charged services would have been available as ITC to the branches. The Order-in-Original was quashed. HC · Uttarakhand ● Dismissed M/s National Book Distributors v Assistant Commissioner State Tax 2026-juristway.com-2973-HC(Uttarakhand)-GST 13 October 2026 In M/s National Book Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner State Tax, 2026-juristway.com-2973-HC(Uttarakhand)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the SCN dated 19.08.2026 under Section 74(1) on grounds of limitation and alleged clubbing of turnover of another entity (National Book House), the court declined to interfere, noting that the authority was competent and the petitioner had the opportunity to raise all contentions including limitation, identity of entities, and suppression before the adjudicating authority. GSTAT · Raipur ● Allowed Nalwa Steel and Power Limited v Office of Commissioner State Tax, -GST Department, Chhattisgarh 2026-juristway.com-2972-GSTAT(Raipur)-GST 13 October 2026 In Nalwa Steel and Power Limited v. Office of Commissioner State Tax, Chhattisgarh, 2026-juristway.com-2972-GSTAT(Raipur)-GST , where the appellant’s vehicle carrying MS TMT Bars was intercepted on 10.11.2024 and penalty of Rs. 6,41,540 (CGST + SGST) was imposed under Section 129(1)(a) on the ground that the actual seller had neither issued the invoice nor generated the e-way bill, the Tribunal examined the documentary evidence and held the transaction to be a bill-to-ship-to arrangement under Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act. The appellant had issued e-invoices to Jindal Steel (bill-to) with Gupta and Sons as the ship-to party; Jindal Steel in turn issued invoices to Gupta and Sons; and Gupta and Sons generated the e-way bills on 10.11.2024 before interception. The Tribunal held that under Rule 138(2), the consignee who causes movement may generate the e-way bill, and that the intermediary’s practice of not disclosing the original supplier is a recognised commercial practice that does not by itself contravene the GST law. The appeal was allowed with all consequential reliefs. GSTAT · Ghaziabad ● Dismissed Assistant Commissioner Ms-4 Gzb v Group of India Pride Proprietor 2026-juristway.com-2971-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST 13 October 2026 In Assistant Commissioner Ms-4 Gzb v. Group of India Pride, Proprietor, 2026-juristway.com-2971-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST , where the Department appealed the FAA’s order setting aside the penalty of Rs. 3,35,286 imposed under Section 129(3) on interception of vehicle carrying aluminium scrap, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal at the threshold as the disputed penalty was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 and the Revenue failed to establish any recognised exception, on the same reasoning as in the companion order APL/D94/GZB/2026. GSTAT · Ghaziabad ● Dismissed Sonia Sharma v M/s. Nayak Engineering, Proprietor. 2026-juristway.com-2970-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST 13 October 2026 In Sonia Sharma v. M/s. Nayak Engineering, Proprietor, 2026-juristway.com-2970-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST , where the Department appealed the FAA’s order setting aside the Section 73 demand of Rs. 2,46,064 for the respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal at the threshold on monetary-limit grounds. The disputed tax of Rs. 2,23,696 was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20,00,000 under Circular No. 2425008 dated 05.07.2024 and Circular No. 252/2026-27 dated 22.05.2026. The Revenue neither identified a recognised exception nor produced material showing the Commissioner specifically exercised the residual power under clause 4 with reasons. Following Vikram Cement (SC), S.R.M.B. Dairy Farming (SC), and Ganga Bai (SC), the Tribunal held it could not admit the appeal on merits without compliance with the statutory conditions. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Hari Motors v State of U.P. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2948-HC(Allahabad)-GST 13 October 2026 In M/s Hari Motors v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026-juristway.com-2948-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 29.11.2021 under Section 74 for 2017-18, the court noted that the SCN dated 06.02.2021 proposed a tax demand of Rs. 16,20,000 and penalty of Rs. 16,20,000, whereas the impugned order confirmed tax of Rs. 25,28,400 and penalty of Rs. 25,28,400 — far in excess of the proposed demand. The court held this to be in gross violation of the mandatory provision of Section 75(7), which prohibits demand confirmation in excess of the amount specified in the notice, constituting a fundamental illegality and rendering the order without jurisdiction. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication with due opportunity of hearing, to be completed within three months. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s N.K. Traders v State of U.P. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2947-HC(Allahabad)-GST 13 October 2026 In M/s N.K. Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026-juristway.com-2947-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the ex parte adjudication order dated 31.03.2026 under Section 74 for the period June 2019, contending that its application dated 04.03.2024 seeking copies of relied-upon documents and cross-examination of witnesses had remained undecided for nearly two years and the order was suddenly passed at the fag end of limitation, the court set aside the order. The standing counsel fairly conceded the petitioner’s assertions could not be disputed. The court directed that copies of all available RUDs be supplied within two weeks, any RUD not available shall not be further relied upon, the petitioner was granted two weeks thereafter to file a final reply along with cross-examination application if any, and adjudication was to be completed by 31.03.2027. HC · Delhi ● Other Hans Raj Kaushik Prop Kaushik Industries v Union of India, Through Secretary & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2946-HC(Delhi)-GST 13 October 2026 In Hans Raj Kaushik Prop. Kaushik Industries v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-2946-HC(Delhi)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the SCN dated 30.06.2025, the OIO dated 17.12.2025, and a rectification order dated 30.12.2025 imposing penalty under Section 122 of the CGST Act for 2018-19, contending inter alia that the OIO was not effectively served and that two pages were uploaded subsequently on 31.12.2025, the court disposed of the petition with liberty to file a statutory appeal. On pre-deposit, the court held that since the demand was exclusively for penalty and proceedings were initiated before the 01.10.2025 amendment, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the judgment in Gaurav Jain v. Joint Commissioner. Questions relating to validity of service, computation of limitation, applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the jurisdictional competence challenge under Section 122 (not pressed) were left open for the appellate authority. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Santosh Jaiswal v Anand Surana 2026-juristway.com-2927-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 13 October 2026 In Santosh Jaiswal v. Anand Surana, 2026-juristway.com-2927-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , the Department appealed against the FAA’s order setting aside a demand for excess transitional credit of Rs. 21,72,496/- claimed in TRAN-1. The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification by the adjudicating authority but held that the notice under Section 74(1) was not sustainable as mere wrong or incorrect information does not establish charges of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, following the Tribunal’s own decision in CGST Commissioner v. Power Tech Global Pvt. Ltd. (2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 51 (Kolkata)) and the CBIC Instruction No. 05/2023-GST dated 13.12.2023. Load more
