HC · Allahabad ● Allowed Meraj Ahmad Proprietor M/s Meraj Brick Field v State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 3 Others 2026-juristway.com-3079-HC(Allahabad)-GST 16 October 2026 In Meraj Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3079-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the ex parte order dated 22.11.2025 under Section 73 for FY 2019-20 contending the order was not passed on the date fixed for hearing and no notice of the subsequent date was given, the Court followed its coordinate Bench ruling in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. (2024:AHC:31108-DB) holding that by not passing the order on the fixed date and not communicating the next date, the authority forced the ex parte nature of the order on the petitioner by its own conduct, quashed the order, and directed the authority to grant personal hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Omega Slayers Private Limited Thru. Authorised Signatory Dev Gupta v Commissioner Commercial Tax State Tax Lko. and Another 2026-juristway.com-3078-HC(Allahabad)-GST 16 October 2026 In M/s Omega Slayers Private Limited v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & Anr., 2026-juristway.com-3078-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the penalty of ₹50,000/- (₹25,000/- CGST + ₹25,000/- UPGST) imposed under Section 125 for delayed filing of GSTR-3B for February 2025, the Court noted the return had been filed, the entire tax liability of ₹50,688/- discharged through ITC and late fee paid, held the penalty exceeded the statutory maximum under the UPGST Act, quashed the SCN and the penalty order, and disposed of the petition. HC · Gujarat ● Other Mustufamiya Hussainmiya Shaikh Proprietor of M/s Mustufa Sales Agency v State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3077-HC(Gujarat)-GST 16 October 2026 In Mustufamiya Hussainmiya Shaikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3077-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where three personal hearing notices bearing different notice numbers were generated on the same date (16.04.2026), digitally signed within intervals of approximately two minutes, each fixing different hearing dates (18.04.2026, 21.04.2026 and 24.04.2026), the Court expressed shock at the portal permitting such manipulation, directed the Chief Commissioner of State Tax to file a report on the portal's functioning and the process of allowing officers to generate multiple notices on the same date, directed the appellate authority to pass a fresh appellate order, warned that exemplary costs would be imposed on the erring officer if the explanation is unsatisfactory, and listed the matter on 26.10.2026. HC · Bombay ● Allowed 1pay Mobileware Private Limited v Union of India (Through The Ministry of Finance) Mumbai, Additional Director General Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) Hyderabad, Additional Director General Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) Mumbai, Principal Director DGGI Headquarters New Delhi 2026-juristway.com-3062-HC(Bombay)-GST 16 October 2026 In 1pay Mobileware Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3062-HC(Bombay)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the provisional attachment orders dated 04.09.2026 and 18.09.2026 passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act attaching its bank accounts, the Court applied the Supreme Court's test in Radha Krishan Industries holding that (i) the power under Section 83 is draconian, (ii) the Commissioner must form an opinion on tangible material that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand and that revenue cannot be protected without attachment, (iii) the petitioner had indicated willingness to cooperate regarding the 88 entities referred to, (iv) neither the impugned orders nor the affidavit-in-reply contained any such opinion based on tangible material, and (v) no GST liability on the petitioner had been established, allowed the petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (g), and set aside the attachment orders. GSTAT · Hyderabad ● Other P.K. Feeds & Manures v G. Narender, Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3061-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST 16 October 2026 In P.K. Feeds & Manures v. G. Narender, Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3061-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST , where the appellant sought urgent hearing and stay of the impugned order, the Tribunal noted the appellant had deposited 20% of the pre-deposit amount under Section 112(8), held that under Section 112(9) recovery proceedings for the balance are deemed stayed till dismissal of the appeal, disposed of the stay application as no separate order was necessary, and directed the respondents to comply with the statutory provisions. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Devendra Singh v Hema Industries 2026-juristway.com-3060-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Devendra Singh v. Hema Industries, 2026-juristway.com-3060-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 25.03.2023 which had set aside the reversal of ITC ordered by the proper officer on account of GSTR-2A mismatch and non-existence of the supplier, the Tribunal held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be penalised for the post-transaction disappearance of a registered supplier, that reversal of ITC from a GSTR-2A mismatch alone without examining other evidence is not sustainable, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal upholding the OIA. GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Other Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v Commissioner, CGST, Shimla Commissionerate, Himachal Pradesh, Commissioner-CGST Dimapur, Nagaland Commissioner, CGST, Aizawl, Mizoram. Commissioner-Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pr. Commissioner, CGST, Patna-1 Commissionerate, Bihar Pr. Commissioner, GST & CE, Puducherry Commissionerate, Puducherry. and Others 2026-juristway.com-3059-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 16 October 2026 In Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v. Commissioner, CGST, Shimla Commissionerate & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3059-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where appeals filed by Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited were pending before multiple GSTAT state benches across Shimla, Dimapur, Aizawl, Raipur, Patna, Puducherry, Jaipur, Chennai, Hyderabad, Guwahati, Bhubaneswar, Dhanbad, Lucknow, Chandigarh and other locations, the President of GSTAT ordered transfer of all connected appeals to the Principal Bench, holding that where appeals pending before two or more state benches involve identical questions of law, only the Principal Bench has jurisdiction, and directed communication of the order to all Vice Presidents at the concerned state benches. GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed Gp Motors Private Limited v Commissioner, State Tax Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3058-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 16 October 2026 In Gp Motors Private Limited v. Commissioner, State Tax Lucknow & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3058-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where the appellant, a motor vehicle dealer, challenged the penalty of ₹1,96,000/- imposed under Section 129 for transporting vehicles between its own branches without generating an e-way bill, the Tribunal held that the movement was an undisputed stock transfer attracting no tax liability, that the virtual impossibility of tax evasion in stock transfers of uniquely identifiable registered motor vehicles and the absence of fraudulent intent ruled out penal measures under Section 129, quashed the penalty, and directed refund of any deposited amount with applicable interest. HC · Bombay ● Allowed Abracadabra India and Ors. v The Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3039-HC(Bombay)-GST 16 October 2026 In Abracadabra India and Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3039-HC(Bombay)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the order dated 31.03.2023 demanding ₹62,42,948/- as tax, interest and penalty, contending that the SCN and ASMT-10 notices were placed only in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' section in the Services tab of the GST portal and were not visible on the homepage under 'View Notices and Orders', the Court followed the Division Bench ruling in T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 6175) to hold that no mistake could be attributed to the petitioner, quashed the impugned order, the DRC-07 dated 31.03.2023 and the recovery letter dated 17.11.2023, directed both parties to appear before the respondent on 27.10.2026, and permitted fresh proceedings keeping the question of limitation open. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v M/s. Shri Shyam Kripa Associates 2026-juristway.com-3038-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v. M/s. Shri Shyam Kripa Associates, 2026-juristway.com-3038-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 13.06.2025 which had set aside the demand of excess ITC of ₹20,81,660/- and disallowed banking ITC of ₹9,184.92/- under Section 73, the Tribunal held that the taxpayer was entitled to claim deferred ITC for FY 2017-18 in FY 2019-20 under the retrospectively inserted Section 16(5) of the CGST Act (per A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd., Sikkim HC), that the GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch was a reconciliation issue as clarified in CBIC Circular Nos. 183/15/2022-GST and 193/05/2023-GST, and that Section 17(5) does not bar ITC on banking services received in furtherance of business, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Associated Cashews v The Commissioner of CGST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3037-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 16 October 2026 In Associated Cashews v. The Commissioner of CGST Thiruvananthapuram, 2026-juristway.com-3037-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the appellant, an exporter of cashew kernels, challenged the rejection of refund of ₹19,79,405/- (November 2018: ₹5,26,330/-, December 2018: ₹9,19,176/-, February 2019: ₹5,33,899/-) being IGST originally paid on exports but reported in the wrong GSTR-3B column (Table 3.1(a) instead of 3.1(b)), which prevented automated Customs refund and necessitated a second payment in August 2019 that was subsequently refunded, the Tribunal found that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) had mechanically rejected the appeals without examining the GST returns, relied on Article 265 of the Constitution and the Orissa HC ruling in Rajendra Narayan Mohanty to hold that excess paid tax cannot be retained by the Government, quashed the OIA dated 31.10.2022, and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Oxygen The Digital Shop v The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3036-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 16 October 2026 In Oxygen The Digital Shop v. The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3036-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the appellant, a partnership firm trading in digital gadgets, challenged the denial of ITC of ₹11,22,940/- (CGST ₹5,61,470/- and SGST ₹5,61,470/-) on four invoices for joinery, carpentry and painting services (SAC 995476/995473) procured for interior furnishing of two rented showrooms, the Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 17(5)(c)/(d) restricts ITC on construction, renovation, additions or alterations only to the extent of capitalisation to immovable property, that the CA certificate confirmed the GST component was not capitalised and was accounted separately as ITC with no depreciation claimed thereon, and that the expenditure was classified under Furniture and Fixtures as movable assets, set aside the impugned order and allowed the ITC claim with consequential relief. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Ashok Kumar Singh v M/s. Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-3035-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Ashok Kumar Singh v. M/s. Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3035-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 13.10.2021 (incorrectly stated as 23.11.2022 in the order) which had set aside the demand of tax ₹3,83,400/- plus equal penalty and interest imposed under Section 74 for alleged ITC availed on invoices from M/s Neon Pharma Chem (Maharashtra), the Tribunal found that the taxpayer had produced purchase orders, tax invoices, e-way bills, consignment documents with vehicle particulars, banking-channel payments and supplier's GSTR-1/GSTR-3B returns, that the supplier's registration which had been cancelled was subsequently restored by the jurisdictional authority thereby nullifying the bogus-supplier allegation, and that the first appellate authority had forwarded the evidence to the adjudicating authority for a report before deciding the appeal, dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the OIA. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Sanjeev Kumar Singh v M/s. Crown Glass Industries 2026-juristway.com-3034-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. M/s. Crown Glass Industries, 2026-juristway.com-3034-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 04.12.2024 which had set aside the penalty and fine imposed under Section 130(2) read with Section 122 after SIB Mainpuri found unaccounted raw material worth ₹10,83,502/- during inspection of the respondent's glass manufacturing premises, the Tribunal held, relying on Allahabad HC decisions in Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, Shri Om Steels and V.K. Electricals, that where excess or unaccounted stock is found during survey of business premises, the proper officer is empowered only to initiate proceedings under Section 73/74 read with Section 35(6), and not under Section 130, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal as sans merit. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Remanded Kunwar Mrityunjay v M/s. Deepak Lamination 2026-juristway.com-3033-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 16 October 2026 In Kunwar Mrityunjay v. M/s. Deepak Lamination, 2026-juristway.com-3033-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 28.02.2024 which had allowed the respondent's ITC claim of ₹67,500/- on purchases from M/s M.H. Enterprises (found non-existent by SIB), the Tribunal extensively analysed the Gujarat HC ruling in Maruti Enterprises and the Jaipur HC ruling in Sumetco Alloys on the cumulative and mandatory nature of Section 16(2) conditions, held that the First Appellate Authority had confined its analysis to the supplier's active portal status without examining actual movement of goods under Section 16(2)(b), and that the OIO similarly lacked adequate findings on the documentary evidence, set aside both orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with directions to verify e-way bills, transport documents and all evidence and afford the respondent effective opportunity of hearing. GSTAT · Agra ● Allowed Trishul Asphalt Products v Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeals Mathura & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3032-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Trishul Asphalt Products v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeals Mathura & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3032-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the appellant's first appeal against order dated 26.02.2022 was filed under the amnesty scheme (Notification No. 53/2023) on 31.01.2024 but was dismissed as time-barred because the entire 12.5% pre-deposit was debited from the electronic credit ledger instead of the prescribed split of 2.5% from the electronic cash ledger, the Tribunal relied on M/s Friends Mobile v. State of Bihar (Patna HC) and M/s Raiyan Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (Patna HC) to hold that the GST portal's technical glitch preventing ledger selection cannot prejudice the statutory remedy of appeal, set aside the OIA dated 25.09.2024, granted 30 days to pay the shortfall cash component, and directed the first appellate authority to admit and decide the appeal afresh on merits. 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 ● Allowed M/s Sarik Infratech v State of U.P. and Another 2026-juristway.com-3076-HC(Allahabad)-GST 15 October 2026 In M/s Sarik Infratech v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2026-juristway.com-3076-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the DRC-01 dated 12.09.2025 proposed tax @ 14% on turnover of ₹4,20,07,730/- but the DRC-07 dated 30.01.2026 under Section 74A confirmed tax @ 9% on a different turnover of ₹2,66,66,643/- without any relation to the proposed demand, the Court held the confirmation on a ground different from the SCN was a glaring and incurable violation of Section 75(7), quashed the order, and granted liberty to issue a fresh SCN in accordance with law. Load more
