GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed Saraswati Motors v Mohammad Yahiya Ansari, Add. Comm. Grade 2 Appeal, (Mobile Squad-3) Prayagraj & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2859-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 09 October 2026 In “Saraswati Motors v. Mohammad Yahiya Ansari, APL/6/ALB/2026” , where the Appellant, an authorised Hero MotoCorp dealer, transported six motorcycles valued at Rs. 4,05,138/- to M/s Prakash Motors on 23.11.2021 with a valid e-invoice (No. SM-MC/21-22/1924, carrying IRN, QR code, and individual engine/chassis numbers) but without an e-way bill, was intercepted, and penalty of Rs. 1,77,248/- was imposed under Section 129(3) with the SCN (MOV-07) and order (MOV-09) both issued within 57 minutes of interception without granting any hearing opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, holding that issuing an adverse order within 57 minutes without evaluating the appellant’s explanation violates Section 75(4) and renders the order a jurisdictional nullity, that demanding tax a second time for the same consignment amounts to unconstitutional double taxation, relying on Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC, 2024) and Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC, 2023), and granted liberty to the Department to proceed under Section 122 or Section 125 for the procedural documentation lapse. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Shilchar Technologies Limited v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Karnataka, Bangalore & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2858-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Shilchar Technologies Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Karnataka, APL/219/BUR/2026” , where the Appellant despatched 114 drums of transformer oil from Gujarat to Tamil Nadu under a delivery challan referencing Invoices No. 1195/1196/1208/1209/1207/1227/1228 on which tax was paid, the vehicle was intercepted at Managuli on 01.01.2022, and penalty was imposed under Section 129 confirmed by the Appellate Authority on grounds of description mismatch between the delivery challan and e-way bill and that goods could not be transported in batches, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, holding that the invoices showed tax was charged, the delivery challan’s statement referencing the invoices came to the Appellant’s aid, Rule 55(5) does not require submission of original invoices to the proper officer, item-wise invoices cannot by themselves establish that batch transportation is impermissible, and there was no intention to evade tax, relying on Merry Gold v. Union of India [(2024) 19 Centax 503 (Kar.)]. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Other Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v Nagshanti Autocars LLP, Partner 2026-juristway.com-2857-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v. Nagshanti Autocars LLP, APL/6/BUR/2026” , the Appellant Department withdrew its application filed under Section 112(4) on the ground that the amount involved was below the monetary limit prescribed under CBIC Circular No. 207/1/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 issued under Section 120(1); the Tribunal accepted the formal withdrawal application in GSTAT Form APL-5W and dismissed the application as withdrawn under Rule 42 of the GST Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, without examining the merits. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Dismissed Commissioner of Central GST, Bengaluru v MG Automobiles Sales and Services, Ballary 2026-juristway.com-2845-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 08 October 2026 In “Commissioner of Central GST, Bengaluru v. MG Automobiles Sales and Services, APL/43/BUR/2026” , where the Respondent, a motor vehicle dealer in Ballary, erroneously treated credit notes received from suppliers in September-November 2017 as output tax liability (instead of reversing ITC), then corrected the error in December 2017 by reversing ITC and adjusting the excess IGST of Rs. 22,30,083/- against CGST Rs. 11,15,064/- and SGST Rs. 11,15,064/- (as the GSTR-3B had no column for carrying forward excess), and the Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 22,30,128/- under Section 73(1), the Tribunal — after analysing CBIC Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 which permits net-basis adjustment in subsequent returns, Section 49(5)(a) which permits IGST ITC utilisation for CGST/SGST, Section 54 and Rule 92 which would have resulted in the excess IGST being re-credited to the Electronic Credit Ledger for utilisation against CGST/SGST, the absence of any mandatory provision during 2017-18 for recipient reversal of ITC on credit notes (Section 34 proviso amended only w.e.f. 01.10.2025), and the Respondent’s substantial IGST liability in subsequent months (Rs. 1,04,84,872/- in March 2018 alone) — dismissed the Department’s appeal, holding that the cross-head utilisation was a procedural infraction causing no revenue loss, warranting a lenient view during the first year of GST implementation. CESTAT · Bangalore ● Allowed M/s. Mach Aero Components Pvt. Ltd. v The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore 2026-juristway.com-2856-CESTAT(Bangalore)-GST 07 October 2026 In “M/s. Mach Aero Components Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, ST Appeal No. 21185 of 2018” , where the Appellant (100% EOU manufacturing aero engine parts) filed a refund claim of Rs. 66,97,395/- for accumulated CENVAT credit on input services used for export under Rule 5, subsequently withdrew the claim before adjudication to carry forward the credit to TRAN-1 filed on 26.12.2017, but the Adjudicating Authority nevertheless rejected the refund claim and the Commissioner (Appeals) further directed reversal of transitional credit with interest, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order, holding that filing a refund claim is a voluntary right, withdrawal renders the claim non-est, the appellant is entitled to carry forward the credit into TRAN-1 under Section 140, there was no allegation of ineligibility of the credit itself, and the rejection of refund should not be used to trigger the first proviso to Section 142(3) to deny transitional credit. HC · Allahabad ● Other M/s Vrindavan Motors v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-2844-HC(Allahabad)-GST 07 October 2026 In “M/s Vrindavan Motors v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ Tax No. 4092 of 2026” , where the petitioner challenged the ex parte adjudication order dated 14.12.2023 under Section 73(9) for FY 2017-18 and the limitation for filing appeal (including the condonable period) had expired, the Court disposed of the petition following its earlier order in M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Prises (2026:AHC:190551-DB), accepting the State’s concession that the petitioner may file the statutory appeal within two weeks without limitation objection, with amounts already deposited adjusted against the 10% pre-deposit requirement. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Om Sai Traders GSTIN No. 09brypg6764m1zn Thru. Proprietor Bappi Kumar Gupta v State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2843-HC(Allahabad)-GST 07 October 2026 In “M/s Om Sai Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, Writ Tax No. 1168 of 2026” , where the petitioner’s registration was cancelled on 21.09.2022 and an order under Section 74 dated 18.03.2023 was passed based on a show cause notice uploaded only on the GST portal without alternative service, the Court quashed the order for violation of natural justice, following the coordinate Bench’s decision in Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. (2024:AHC:23697-DB), and granted liberty to the Department to issue proper notice. HC · Orissa ● Allowed M/s. Chandan Patra v Union of India, The Chief Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise Bhubaneswar, The Superintendent Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Range VII Bhubaneswar 2026-juristway.com-2842-HC(Orissa)-GST 07 October 2026 In “M/s. Chandan Patra v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 12771 of 2026” , where the petitioner, a works contractor, received a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2025 under Section 74 for Rs. 8,83,021/- GST on works contract executed for the Executive Engineer, Bhanjanagar Irrigation Division during FY 2019-20, appeared on the hearing date of 27.01.2026 and filed a detailed manual reply raising jurisdictional objections and the issue of applicable rate (citing Notification No. 31/2017-Central Tax (Rates)), and was granted accommodation until 13.02.2026 to furnish additional documents, but the Superintendent passed the Order-in-Original on 04.02.2026 treating the case as if no reply was filed and no hearing was given, the Court — undertaking an extensive analysis of natural justice principles citing the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements in Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. (2025), CORE v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) (2025), Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023), and Tata Steel Ltd. v. Union of India (2026) — held that (i) non-consideration of a manually filed reply bearing the officer’s acknowledgment is a patent violation of natural justice, (ii) Rule 142(4) does not mandate that DRC-06 be filed only electronically, (iii) the Order-in-Original was passed prematurely before the extended date for document production, quashed the order, and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication with liberty to the petitioner to raise all objections including jurisdiction under Section 74. GSTAT · Surat ● Dismissed The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Division-XI, Ankleshwar, Vadodara-II Commissionerate v Associated Enterprise [Bipinbhai Madhala1 Patel] 2026-juristway.com-2841-GSTAT(Surat)-GST 07 October 2026 In “The Assistant Commissioner of CGST v. Associated Enterprise, APL/7/SRT/2026” , where the Department demanded GST at 18% (classified as SAC 99979, Sr. No. 35 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate)) on assignment of GIDC leasehold rights by the unregistered Respondent to Sayona Crop Care, with the Respondent contending that the agreement and physical possession were completed in March 2017 (pre-GST) while the GIDC FTO was issued on 01.03.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Department’s appeal following Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Aerocom Cushions (upheld by the Supreme Court), holding that GST is not leviable on the transaction and that the remaining questions (pre-GST timing, Section 74/122 invocation) did not survive for consideration. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate, Darjeeling v M/s. Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2840-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 07 October 2026 In “Commissioner of CGST, Siliguri v. M/s Rajshahi Banijya Pvt. Ltd., APL/11/KLK/2026” , involving the same respondent and identical credit note issue as case 2839 but for export refund of Rs. 2,79,084/- under Section 54(3)(i) for April-June 2021, the Tribunal applied the same analysis — credit notes of Rs. 1,01,510/- pertaining to FY 2019-20 were issued beyond the Section 34(2) time limit and could not be excluded — but found that even after recalculating the adjusted total turnover to Rs. 5,95,52,703/-, the maximum permissible refund of Rs. 3,42,018/- exceeded the claimed amount of Rs. 2,79,084/-, and accordingly dismissed the Revenue’s appeal as the refund was proper and in accordance with law. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate v M/s Rajshahi Banijya Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-2839-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 07 October 2026 In “Commissioner of CGST, Siliguri v. M/s Rajshahi Banijya Pvt. Ltd., APL/18/KLK/2026” , where the Revenue challenged the refund of Rs. 4,32,537/- sanctioned for accumulated ITC under inverted tax structure (tea at 5%, inputs at higher rate) for April-June 2021, contending that the FAA erred in excluding credit notes of Rs. 12,04,575/- from the adjusted total turnover under Rule 89(5), the Tribunal found that credit notes amounting to Rs. 11,03,065/- pertaining to invoices raised during April-June 2021 were properly excluded, but credit notes amounting to Rs. 1,01,510/- pertaining to FY 2019-20 invoices were issued in June 2021 beyond the Section 34(2) time limit and could not be excluded, modified the refund to Rs. 4,30,073/- (a reduction of Rs. 2,464/-), and directed recovery of the excess. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Partly Allowed Gopinath TM v Mukand Limited 2026-juristway.com-2832-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 07 October 2026 In "Gopinath TM v. Mukand Limited, APL/258/BUR/2026" , where the Respondent M/s. Mukand Limited cleared goods between April 2017 and June 2017 under the pre-GST regime with transaction values subject to contractual price escalation clauses, subsequently raised debit notes on 29.09.2018 and 15.10.2018 discharging differential tax of Rs. 54,44,190/- under Section 142(2)(a), and the OIO No. BEL/GST/000/DIVH/ASC/VM/05/2021-22 dated 28.03.2022 demanded interest of Rs. 13,85,623/- under Section 50 along with penalties under Section 122 which the OIA No. BGM-JJ-ADC-38-2023-24-GST dated 30.06.2023 set aside, the Tribunal — applying the binding larger-bench ratio of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Para 63, reaffirming SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd.) — held that the Section 142(2)(a) deeming fiction is a purely procedural gateway that does not rewrite economic history or create a fresh tax point, that Sections 39(7) and 34(4) are administrative reporting mechanisms that do not shift the date when value accrued, restored the interest demand of Rs. 13,85,623/- as mandatory under Section 50, upheld the OIA's quashing of penalty under Section 122 on the ground of bonafide transitional interpretation, and partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. GSTAT · Thane ● Remanded Vikram Inderjit Kapur v Chandrakant Dhondiram Jadhav, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Palghar 2026-juristway.com-2831-GSTAT(Thane)-GST 07 October 2026 In "Vikram Inderjit Kapur v. Chandrakant Dhondiram Jadhav, APL/10/THN/2026" , where the SGST Department disallowed ITC on the ground of mismatch and the Appellant contended that neither the show cause notice nor subsequent proceedings provided full details of the mismatch enabling explanation, and that the First Appellate Authority passed an ex parte order without granting sufficient hearing when the Appellant sought adjournment via email, the Tribunal held that there was gross violation of natural justice at every stage, that the detail chart of mismatch was submitted by the Departmental AR only at the Tribunal hearing and was never before the Adjudicating Authority, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication with a direction to provide mismatch details and grant sufficient hearing opportunity, to be completed preferably within 3 months. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Dismissed Sri Kariyappa Alahalli Manjappa (Proprietor of M/s. Vintek Control Systems) v The Superintendent of Central Tax, BNWD-3 Range, Bangalore 2026-juristway.com-2855-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 06 October 2026 In “Sri Kariyappa Alahalli Manjappa v. Superintendent of Central Tax, APL/31/BUR/2026” , where the Appellant, proprietor of M/s. Vintek Control Systems, challenged the denial of ITC of Rs. 1,35,231/- (primarily IGST Rs. 1,32,655/- on a purchase of fire pump from M/s Naveen’s, Chennai for Rs. 14,00,000/- and CGST/SGST Rs. 1,288/- each on a transaction with M/s Classic Power Company), the Tribunal — noting that the Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s judgment upholding Section 16(2)(c) in Maruti Enterprise — held that the Appellant failed to discharge the burden under Section 155 of proving that the suppliers paid the tax, upheld the demand with interest and penalty of Rs. 33,266/-, but directed the proper officer to compute interest under Rule 88B(3) and furnish the working before recovery, and observed that the Department should pursue the defaulting suppliers with equal diligence and that the Appellant may re-avail credit under Section 41 if the tax is recovered from them. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Green Tech Thru. Proprietor Vivek Kumar Mishra v State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others 2026-juristway.com-2838-HC(Allahabad)-GST 06 October 2026 In “M/s Green Tech v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ Tax No. 1180 of 2026” , where the petitioner’s GST registration (GSTIN: 09AAZFG8471E1ZO) was cancelled by order dated 05.06.2025 in Form GST REG-19 with effect from 16.12.2024, the Court quashed the cancellation order on the ground that it was bereft of any reasons and passed ex parte, and directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to file all pending returns and deposit outstanding dues within fifteen days. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Manoj Kumar Yadav v State of U.P. and Another 2026-juristway.com-2837-HC(Allahabad)-GST 06 October 2026 In “M/s Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another, Writ Tax No. 4061 of 2026” , where the petitioner’s registration was cancelled on 21.11.2020 and a show cause notice was issued only electronically through the common portal on 30.09.2025 — nearly five years after cancellation — resulting in an ex parte adjudication order under Section 74 dated 28.03.2026 of which the petitioner became aware only upon recovery proceedings, the Court set aside the order, noting that the Commissioner’s Circular dated 07.05.2025 requires physical service of notice on persons facing adjudication after registration cancellation, granted the petitioner two weeks to file a final reply, and directed the adjudicating authority to conclude proceedings by 31.12.2026 after granting personal hearing with 15 days’ advance notice. GSTAT · Ghaziabad ● Dismissed Gyanendra Singh v Shree Jee Metals 2026-juristway.com-2836-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST 06 October 2026 In “Gyanendra Singh v. Shree Jee Metals, APL/D67/GZB/2026” , where the Mobile Squad intercepted a vehicle carrying 2,530 kg of brass scrap on 16.11.2023 without an e-way bill (subsequently generated at 4:29 p.m.), the original authority imposed penalty of Rs. 3,14,226/- under Section 129, the FAA reduced it to Rs. 10,000/- under Section 122(xiv) finding the invoice genuine and no intent to evade tax, and the Department appealed, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal at the threshold applying the same monetary-limit framework as in case 2834, holding that the disputed penalty of Rs. 3,14,226/- was below Rs. 20,00,000/- and the Revenue failed to establish any recognised exception. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v M/s. ASP Fabricks 2026-juristway.com-2835-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 06 October 2026 In “Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v. M/s. ASP Fabricks, APL/74/AGR/2026” , where the Revenue alleged that the Respondent’s firm “Bhaiya Traders” (GSTIN: 09HIDPK9286GIZN) was bogus and non-existent and that an inward supply of Rs. 31,500/- with tax invoice No. 05 dated 20.01.2022 was shown only to claim ITC with mala fide intention, resulting in an ex parte demand of Rs. 11,340/- (CGST Rs. 2,835/- + SGST Rs. 2,835/- plus equal penalty), the Tribunal dismissed the Department’s appeal, holding that the firm was existent with premises at 19A, Radha Vihar, Kamla Nagar, Agra, bearing a valid GSTIN, had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the relevant year, and the Revenue had failed to show that the Respondent had evaded any tax. GSTAT · Ghaziabad ● Dismissed Uttam Kumar Tiwari v M/s. Home Essentials 2026-juristway.com-2834-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST 06 October 2026 In “Uttam Kumar Tiwari v. M/s. Home Essentials, APL/D74/GZB/2026” , where the Department appealed against the FAA’s order setting aside penalty of Rs. 16,23,766/- under Section 122 and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 130 of the SGST Act (totalling Rs. 18,23,766/-) arising from a stock discrepancy involving allegedly undeclared goods valued at Rs. 90,20,925/-, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal at the threshold, holding that the disputed demand of Rs. 16,23,766/- was below the monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- prescribed under Circular No. 2425008 dated 05.07.2024 issued under Section 120 of the UPGST Act, that the Revenue failed to establish any recognised exception to the monetary limit, that a bare statement of the Commissioner’s approval cannot substitute for compliance with the binding litigation policy, and that maintainability must be examined before the merits — the Tribunal did not examine or decide the merits. GSTAT · Surat ● Dismissed The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Division-IX, Ankleshwar, Vadodara-II Commissionerate v Pragna Chemical Industries, Shivabhishek Industrial Park Private Limited and Kumar Packaging 2026-juristway.com-2833-GSTAT(Surat)-GST 06 October 2026 In “The Assistant Commissioner of CGST v. Pragna Chemical Industries and Others, APL/59, 82 & 83/SRT/2026” , where three departmental appeals challenged Orders-in-Appeal that set aside demands of GST on assignment of GIDC leasehold rights to the Respondent-assignees under the reverse charge mechanism — the demand classified the transaction as “Other Miscellaneous Services” (SAC 99979) at 18% under Sr. No. 35 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) — the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals, holding that the transaction is squarely covered by the Gujarat High Court’s judgment in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India (R/SCA No. 11345 of 2023) and the Bombay High Court’s concurring judgment in Aerocom Cushions Pvt. Ltd. (2026:BHC-NAG:348-DB), both upheld by the Supreme Court which dismissed the SLPs, and that the Department’s stated intention to file a review petition does not dilute the binding effect of the judgments. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Partly Allowed M/s Groma Infrastructure Limited, (Formerly MVPR Infrastructure Limited), Raichur v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Karnataka 2026-juristway.com-2830-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 06 October 2026 In "M/s Groma Infrastructure Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, APL/143/BUR/2026" , where the Appellant, a works contractor executing Government projects in Karnataka, challenged Order-in-Appeal No. GST:AP:445/2024-25 dated 19.02.2026 which dismissed its first appeal against interest-only demand of Rs. 44,46,989/- (on differential tax of Rs. 2,65,81,200/- paid through DRC-03 after the rate on works contracts for Government entities rose from 12% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2022, plus GSTR-3B late-payment interest) on three threshold grounds (delay, signatory authority, non-payment of "admitted" amount), all without granting a hearing, the Tribunal held that: (i) Section 107(8) mandates a hearing even on threshold objections and dismissal without hearing breaches natural justice; (ii) the 21-day delay is condoned — neither the Act nor Rules prescribe a separate application or affidavit for condonation; (iii) the General Manager validly signed the appeal under a notarised General Power of Attorney; (iv) a computation offered "even assuming that it is liable to be paid" is not an admission under Section 107(6)(a), and where no tax is confirmed, Section 107(6)(b) requires no pre-deposit; on the merits, the Tribunal confirmed interest of Rs. 21,96,829/- each under CGST and SGST on the differential tax, rejected the cum-tax contention under Rule 35, and reduced the GSTR-3B interest to CGST Rs. 418/- and SGST Rs. 419/- after allowing credit for interest already paid, resulting in a total confirmed demand of Rs. 43,94,495/-. GSTAT · Surat ● Dismissed The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Division-IX, Ankleshwar, Vadodara-II Commissionerate v Shreeji Enterprise and Shri Kajalben Hiteshbhai Malaviya, Proprietor of M/s. Sargam Enterprise 2026-juristway.com-2829-GSTAT(Surat)-GST 06 October 2026 In "The Assistant Commissioner of CGST v. Shreeji Enterprise and Smt. Kajalben Hiteshbhai Malaviya, APL/81 & 86/SRT/2026" , where the Department appealed against Orders-in-Appeal upholding the Adjudicating Authority's orders dropping demands of GST on assignment by the Respondents of leasehold rights in GIDC-allotted plots to third parties (treated as "Other Miscellaneous Services" under SAC 99979 at 18% under Sr. No. 35 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate)), the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, following the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India (R/SCA No. 11345 of 2023) — which held that assignment of GIDC leasehold rights is a transaction in immovable property not subject to GST — noting that the SLPs filed by the Department against this judgment were dismissed by the Supreme Court and that the Department's stated intention to file a review petition did not warrant any interference. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Remanded Rameshwar Gupta v Commissioner SGST, Commissioner, GST Office Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2828-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 06 October 2026 In "Rameshwar Gupta v. Commissioner SGST, Lucknow & Ors., APL/1/LCK/2026" , where the Appellant, proprietor of M/s Shakti Iron Stores (GSTIN: 09AFOPG6846H1ZZ), challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 14.05.2025 which dismissed his appeal against the demand order dated 26.12.2023 for disputed ITC of Rs. 13,12,968/- (of which Rs. 5,78,400/- from two identified suppliers — M/s Day & Co. and M/s Muskan Steel) on account of the appellant's non-appearance due to medical issues, the Tribunal held that the OIA was passed without examining the substantive dispute, that the GSTR-3B vs. GSTR-2A mismatch cannot by itself constitute conclusive proof that ITC was wrongly availed, that the CA Certificate dated 14.07.2026 is admissible as corroborative material per CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST (applicable to pending cases), accepted the medical certificate applying the Supreme Court's ratio in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, allowed the appeal by way of remand, set aside the OIO and OIA, and directed the Proper Officer to examine the CA Certificate, invoices, ledger accounts, and reconciliation for fresh determination. HC · Uttarakhand ● Dismissed Nikhil Gupta v The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Others 2026-juristway.com-2827-HC(Uttarakhand)-GST 05 October 2026 In "Nikhil Gupta v. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Others, W.P.(M/B) No. 847 of 2026" , where the petitioner — whose business premises had been searched under Section 67(2) on 21.01.2026 and who was simultaneously receiving summons under Section 70 from the State GST — sought quashing of five summons dated between 28.02.2026 and 30.07.2026, restraint on further summons, directions against coercive steps, and enablement to file GSTR-9/9C for FY 2025-26, the Court held that the writ petition was premature as no adverse order had been passed, the Department was merely seeking information and documents in exercise of its power under Section 70, and there was no evidence of coercion or threat of arrest, and dismissed the petition. SC ● Dismissed M/s. Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-2818-SC-GST 05 October 2026 In “M/s. Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-2818-SC-GST” , the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Load more
