GSTAT · Ernakulam ● Allowed Oxino Peb Pvt Ltd, Palakkad v Commissioner of SGST, Keralam. 2026-juristway.com-3224-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST 30 October 2026 In Oxino PEB Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of SGST, Keralam, 2026-juristway.com-3224-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST , where a consignment of 21,800 kg of HR sheets moving under Invoice No. KSB/72L/HR/447 and an e-way bill from M/s Kummenchery Steels to the appellant was intercepted at 4.15 p.m. on 17.07.2020 while being unloaded at the premises of M/s Vera Display and Storage Products Pvt. Ltd., Kanjikode, a job worker, an e-way bill for that job-work movement was generated at 7.20 p.m. the same day, and tax and penalty of Rs. 77,323 each under CGST and SGST were confirmed by OIO dated 18.08.2020 and upheld by Order-in-Appeal No. GSTA 93/2020 dated 18.12.2021, the Tribunal held that the notice in Form GST MOV-07 did not specify any provision of the Act or Rules contravened, which is a sine qua non for Section 129(1), so that, applying Armour Security, the proceedings were void and the OIO, which relied on provisions never put to the appellant, breached natural justice (paras 5.1–5.2); that the OIO itself accepted the movement as job work and did not doubt the documents, its speculation of a taxable sale being unsupported (paras 6.1–6.2); and that since goods sent for job work under Section 143 bear no tax, no penalty measured by tax payable can arise (paras 7.1–7.5), drawing support from T.P. Metals & Roofings; both questions of law were answered in the negative and the appeal allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed S.N. Stores v The Commissioner of Kerala State GST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3223-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In S.N. Stores v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3223-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where a dealer in cigarettes reported compensation cess of Rs. 6,55,544.24 in Table 7 (B2C) of its GSTR-1 for January 2019 but declared and paid cess of Rs. 2,56,350 in GSTR-3B, the taxable value of Rs. 3,00,926 and CGST and SGST of Rs. 37,329.03 each being identical in both returns, and the first appellate authority, rejecting the plea of clerical error "for want of evidences", confirmed cess of Rs. 4,56,952, interest of Rs. 4,10,343 and penalty of Rs. 45,695 (total Rs. 9,12,990), the Tribunal held that the GSTR-1 cess entry did not correspond to any taxable value or tax figure, that the Revenue had neither alleged nor shown suppression of the quantity of cigarettes supplied or short payment of CGST and SGST, and that bald allegations of short payment of cess on such a mismatch could not stand, the adjudicating authority having been bound to examine the plea on facts and condone the mistake (paras 5.0–7.0); the OIA dated 09.01.2026 was quashed and the appeal allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Kurian Abraham Pvt Ltd v The Commissioner of Keralam State GST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3222-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Keralam State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3222-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where a vehicle carrying 36 drums (7,560 kg) of natural rubber latex valued at Rs. 3,85,560 from the estate of Arun Scaria, an agriculturist, to the appellant was intercepted on 04.01.2022 without an e-way bill, the delivery challan No. 001/2021-22 prepared by the appellant on the supplier's behalf bore the GSTIN of an unrelated dealer, M/s. Anku Rubbers, and penalty of Rs. 38,556 was paid the same day and upheld in first appeal, the Revenue additionally objecting that the penalty was below the Rs. 50,000 limit in Section 112(2) and that payment under Section 129(5) concluded the proceedings, the Tribunal held that Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax exempts rubber latex moving from an agriculturist's premises to a registered taxable person under a Rule 55 delivery challan irrespective of value (para 9.0), that the agriculturist's affidavit and Anku Rubber's denial established that the GSTIN was a genuine mistake, the challan being otherwise undisputed (paras 6.0–7.0 and 10.0), and that no penalty could be imposed for a clerical error; the penalty was set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Remanded Rupesh & Company, Kollam v Commissioner of State Taxes Keralam State. 2026-juristway.com-3221-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Rupesh & Company, Kollam v. Commissioner of State Taxes, Keralam State, 2026-juristway.com-3221-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where, on scrutiny under Section 61 for FY 2017-18, a show cause notice dated 06.07.2021 alleged that ITC in GSTR-3B exceeded GSTR-2A, the demand was confirmed by OIO dated 15.01.2022 and partly sustained by Order-in-Appeal GSTA (KLM) 50/2022 dated 09.06.2023, including denial of Rs. 71,157 each of CGST and SGST (Rs. 1,42,314) on supplies from Giant Steels despite the appellate order recording that the supplier had filed returns and paid tax, the Tribunal held that the dispute was squarely covered by Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, applicable to pending appeal proceedings for FY 2017-18 (paras 4.1–4.3), and, the Revenue consenting, set aside the OIA and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to examine it afresh in terms of the circular and the additional evidence, comprising the supplier's GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for August 2017 and the portal's Tax Liability and ITC Comparison. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Remanded Arathy Mobiles, Ettumanoor v Commissioner of State Taxes Keralam State. 2026-juristway.com-3220-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Arathy Mobiles, Ettumanoor v. Commissioner of State Taxes, Keralam State, 2026-juristway.com-3220-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where ITC claimed by a mobile phone dealer for FY 2017-18 in excess of GSTR-2A was demanded by an order under Section 73(9) dated 07.02.2022, and the first appeal was dismissed by Order-in-Appeal No. GSTA16/22 dated 22.11.2022, the shortfall having arisen because supplier Red Marketing, Kuravilangad mentioned another taxpayer's GSTIN in its GSTR-1, the Tribunal held that the dispute was squarely covered by Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022, para 6 of which applies the instructions to FY 2017-18 cases where adjudication or appeal proceedings are pending, that its benefit could not be extended below only because it was issued after the first appeal (paras 4.1–4.3), and, both sides consenting, set aside the OIA and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration in terms of the circular and the documents produced, after following natural justice. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Ben Medicals v The Commissioner of Kerala State GST. 2026-juristway.com-3219-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Ben Medicals v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3219-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where ITC of Rs. 1,12,264 for FY 2017-18 was disallowed on a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A comparison (ASMT-10 dated 05.03.2020, SCN dated 30.07.2021, OIO dated 27.06.2022, OIA dated 26.11.2022) although the pharmaceutical dealer had explained that suppliers reported the supplies as B2C, the proprietor died on 17.12.2022, the registration was cancelled and the business discontinued, and the second appeal was filed by his son as legal heir, the Tribunal held that under Section 93(1)(b), where business is discontinued, liability can be pursued only against the legal representative and only out of the estate (paras 8.0–9.0), that the Revenue had issued no notice to the heir and made no inquiry into any estate for over three years, and that, as consistently held by the High Courts, no proceedings can be conducted against a deceased person (paras 10.0–12.0); it further held on merits that supplier certificates confirming payment of tax on the invoices, uncontroverted by the Revenue, established eligibility (para 13.0), and declared the entire proceedings null and void, quashing the OIA and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Partly Allowed Devasurya Traders v The Commissioner of Kerala State GST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3206-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 30 October 2026 In Devasurya Traders v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3206-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where a dealer in waste paper and scrap carried forward Rs. 2,60,416.79 as SGST credit in TRAN-1, comprising Rs. 84,500 claimed as the KVAT balance as on 30.06.2017 and Rs. 1,75,916.79 being VAT on a truck chassis with engine valued at Rs. 12,13,219.21 purchased under Invoice No. VES/17-18/0118 dated 02.06.2017, and the JC (Appeals) by order dated 27.06.2024 upheld rejection of both on the ground that the capital goods credit was not reflected in Part E of the VAT return and no Form 25 application was filed within 30 days, the Tribunal held that the June 2017 KVAT return showed 'NIL' balance at credit and the Rs. 84,500 claim was rightly disallowed (para 6.0); that the truck, already declared in Part C of the June 2017 return, could be put to use only after body-building, by which time the GST regime had commenced and TRAN-1 was the only route, Section 140 attaching no further condition (para 7.0); and that, following P.K. Joseph, the 30-day period under Section 11(2) of the KVAT Act runs from commercial use, so the absence of Form 25B before 30.06.2017 does not negate substantive entitlement and the appellant had been made a victim of procedure (paras 8.0–9.0); the OIA was set aside to the extent of Rs. 1,75,916.79 with consequential relief and the appeal partly allowed. HC · Delhi ● Dismissed Oyster Steel and Iron Private Limited v Assistant Commissioner Circle VII Group 61 Central Goods and Service Tax Audit I. 2026-juristway.com-3205-HC(Delhi)-GST 30 October 2026 In Oyster Steel and Iron Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Audit-I, 2026-juristway.com-3205-HC(Delhi)-GST , where the petitioner applied on 11.01.2020 for cancellation of registration from 31.12.2019, received an audit notice in Form GST ADT-01 dated 15.09.2022 for 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2021 while the application was pending, and, after obtaining an order in an earlier writ in which it did not disclose the notice, had its registration cancelled with effect from 31.12.2019 (Paras 2-10), the court held that an application for cancellation only suspends registration under Rule 21A, and that, read with Section 2(13), “registered person for such period” in Section 65 covers a person registered during the period audited, even if the registration is later cancelled retrospectively (Paras 17-31). Adopting the contextual approach in L.J. Victoria Properties, noting Ashoka Fabricast, and declining to follow Tvl. Raja Stores and paragraph 7.1.2 of the Model All India GST Audit Manual, 2023 to the extent contrary, it held that the audit period was not liable to be curtailed, while clarifying that the Department could not treat post-31.12.2019 returns as valid or assume any supply or liability for that period (Paras 32-38). Relief was additionally refused for non-disclosure of the notice in the earlier writ, and the petition was dismissed with the interim stay vacated (Paras 39-41). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Remanded The Dangarh MP Cass Limited v The State Tax Officer-Cum-Proper Officer, Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3204-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 30 October 2026 In The Dangarh MPCASS Ltd. v. State Tax Officer, 2026-juristway.com-3204-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where a cooperative society trading in cattle feed was assessed for 2019-20 to Rs. 1,96,466 on ITC reversal and a GSTR-1/GSTR-9 difference, its rectification application was rejected on 05.06.2025, and the appellate authority, taking up its appeals against both the assessment and the rectification rejection together, dismissed the latter on 10.12.2025 merely as multiplicity of litigation without any finding on the former (Paras 2, 5-6), the Tribunal held that every appeal must be disposed of under Section 107(11) by confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against, and that the appellate authority had neither decided the appeal against the assessment on merits nor dealt with the grounds challenging the rectification rejection (Paras 7-10). The order was quashed and the matter remitted to the appellate authority to decide both appeals afresh on the grounds raised (Paras 11-12). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Remanded The Dhanaula Co-Op Agri. Service Society Ltd Dhanaula v The State Tax Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3203-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 30 October 2026 In The Dhanaula Co-op. Agri. Service Society Ltd. v. State Tax Officer, 2026-juristway.com-3203-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where a cooperative society was assessed for 2019-20 to tax of Rs. 1,20,852, interest of Rs. 1,06,978 and penalty of Rs. 20,000 — Rs. 1,19,506 as ITC reversal on exempt supplies by proportion under Rules 42 and 43 and Rs. 1,346 on a GSTR-1/GSTR-9 difference — after its reply to the DRC-01A was ignored and its rectification application rejected, and the first appeal failed (Paras 2-6), the Tribunal held that reversal is required only if ITC is availed on goods or services used partly for exempt supplies, so none arises on cattle feed purchased at nil rate without credit unless common credit, such as on input services, is shown (Paras 7-10). It also noted that the annual return under Section 44 allows correction of figures in periodic returns (Para 11). With the consent of both sides, it quashed the order-in-appeal and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after verification and, if necessary, additional evidence (Paras 12-13). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Allowed Mittal Cutters & Allied Works (P) Ltd v Commissioner (Appeals) Office of The Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods and Services Tax Appeals Commissionerate Chandigarh. & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3202-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 30 October 2026 In Mittal Cutters & Allied Works (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh, 2026-juristway.com-3202-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where a demand of IGST of Rs. 36,93,185 for 2020-21 was raised on a DGARM comparison of tax as per 24 e-way bills shown against the appellant’s GSTIN with tax paid in GSTR-3B, and upheld in first appeal on the view that a registered job worker must itself generate e-way bills (Paras 3-6, 11-13), the Tribunal examined a sample trail — a principal’s delivery challan marked “for job work only”, the principal’s e-way bill for outward job work, the transporter’s note, the appellant’s invoice for job charges of Rs. 16,842 and the principal’s e-way bill for job work returns of Rs. 13,48,370 (Paras 14-15). It held that Rule 138 permits the registered person causing movement to generate the e-way bill, that the e-way bills here were generated by the principal for job work movements, and that the notice, based only on DGARM data, alleged no wrongdoing (Paras 16-21). Holding that tax cannot be demanded merely on e-way bill values without other evidence of evasion, it allowed the appeal and set aside the tax, interest and penalty (Paras 22-23). GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed M and S v Commercial Tax Officer Prayagraj Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3201-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 30 October 2026 In M/s M & S v. Commercial Tax Officer, Prayagraj, 2026-juristway.com-3201-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where a Section 73 demand of Rs. 64,566 for 2019-20, based on GSTR-1 tax of Rs. 1,40,754 against Rs. 76,188 paid in GSTR-3B, was upheld in first appeal on the footing that the appellant had admitted wrong B2C reporting and not amended it in the following year, the appellant explaining that it had re-reported the same supplies as B2B in the March 2020 GSTR-1 so that recipients could see the credit (Paras 2-7), the Tribunal directed production of GSTR-1 for the whole year, a statement of the affected supplies, the invoices and the March 2020 GSTR-3B, and on verification found the explanation correct (Paras 8.1-8.2). Holding that the rectification within the same financial year was permissible, it set aside the order-in-original dated 24.08.2024 and the order-in-appeal dated 19.03.2025, quashed the demand and directed refund of any amount recovered or deposited (Paras 9, Order). GSTAT · New Delhi ● Dismissed Laldeo Rajak v Kaneka India Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-3218-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST 29 October 2026 In Laldeo Rajak v. Kaneka India Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3218-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST , where the respondent paid GST of Rs. 1,28,10,072 through GSTR-3B filed on 19.05.2020 on an advance of Rs. 7,11,67,068 received in April 2020, part of which was adjusted against supplies in June 2020, sought refund of the balance Rs. 39,88,388 by applications dated 29.02.2024, 31.03.2024 and 25.05.2024 (the latter two after deficiency memos dated 12.03.2024 and 10.04.2024), suffered rejection on limitation by OIO dated 22.07.2024 that dismissed its reply as "not admissible", and obtained an OIA dated 30.04.2025 annulling the OIO for breach of natural justice without deciding limitation, the Tribunal rejected the Department's objection that it could not dispute the computation of limitation for the first time (paras 27–29), held that the OIA was a non-speaking order amounting to a forbidden remand under Section 107(11)–(12) and decided limitation itself under Section 113 (paras 49–67), held that since the relevant date of 19.05.2020 fell within the window excluded by Notification No. 13/2022-CT and paragraph 5(I)–(II) of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the two years ran from 01.03.2022 to 29.02.2024, rejecting both the 675-day and 650-day add-on methods and distinguishing the Andhra Pradesh High Court in MC Wane India (paras 101–106), held that refiled applications relate back only to a timely original application (paras 80–81), and held that the two-year limit is a substantive condition that cannot be avoided by characterising tax on an unadjusted advance as a deposit under mistake of law, distinguishing Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Aalidhra Texcraft, KVR Construction and Parijat Construction (paras 112–131); the departmental appeal was dismissed and the annulment upheld for the Tribunal's substituted reasons. GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Shekhar Basappa Wali v Shrinivasa Traders. 2026-juristway.com-3200-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 29 October 2026 In Shekhar Basappa Wali v. M/s Shrinivasa Traders, 2026-juristway.com-3200-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where an arecanut trader, found after searches to operate from an empty premises, had availed ITC of Rs. 4,28,42,308 from suppliers whose registrations were cancelled before the invoices and passed it to non-existent recipients using vehicle numbers of scooters and tankers, and the adjudicating authority, dropping the tax demand under Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST, imposed penalties under Section 122(1)(vii) and 122(1)(x), which the first appellate authority deleted (Paras 2-20), the Tribunal, proceeding in the respondent’s absence, held that the circular does not restrict penalties to Section 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii), and that the respondent’s contradictory statements and fake documents attracted Section 122(1)(x) (Paras 25-29). On Section 122(1)(vii), it held that statements under Section 70 bind the maker following Ganpati Overseas and Imtiaz Ahmed, distinguished Habib Uz Zaman, J.P. Iscon, Gargo Traders and CERA Boards, held the vehicle-number circular inapplicable where vehicles did not exist, and found that bank statements first produced in appeal were barred by Rule 112 (Paras 30-46). The appeal was allowed, the penalties restored, and the appropriation of Rs. 22,00,400 and bank attachments allowed to stand (Order). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Nagamangalamurthy Ganesh Kumar v Harji Engineering Works Private Limited, Managing Director 2026-juristway.com-3199-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 29 October 2026 In Nagamangalamurthy Ganesh Kumar v. Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3199-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where the respondent declared tax of Rs. 1,19,04,300 in GSTR-1 for March to November 2019 but filed no GSTR-3B until 07.10.2020, after cancellation of its registration on 20.11.2019, and an order dated 11.10.2021 under Section 76 confirmed the demand, appropriated Rs. 55,19,464 paid in cash, disallowed Rs. 63,84,836 debited from the credit ledger as time-barred under Section 16(4) and imposed an equal penalty, which the first appellate authority set aside on 20.06.2023 (Paras 2.1-2.7), the Tribunal proceeded ex parte after four notices and affixture (Para 5.2). It held that Section 76(1) is a non-obstante provision covering every person who collects an amount representing tax and does not pay it, that bank verification established receipt of over Rs. 3.24 crore from the recipient against the tax invoices, and that ITC debited through belated returns was time-barred under Section 16(4) (Paras 5.3-5.8). The Department’s appeal was allowed and the order-in-original restored in its entirety (Order). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v Pavitra Associates 2026-juristway.com-3189-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 29 October 2026 In Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v. M/s Pavitra Associates, 2026-juristway.com-3189-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a supplier of data entry and dietary food services to South Western Railway, Hubballi collected GST of Rs. 30,60,658 from April 2018 to September 2021 but short-declared turnover and stopped filing after its registration was cancelled on 01.11.2019, withholding Rs. 25,18,205, and an order dated 21.11.2022 under Section 76 confirmed that amount with interest and an equal penalty, the tax being paid by DRC-03 in 2023, and the first appellate authority on 08.03.2024 deleted the penalty (Paras 2-5), the Tribunal held that Section 76(1) applies to every person collecting an amount representing tax, regardless of registration, following R.K. Transport & Constructions, and that tax collected from recipients is held in a fiduciary capacity, as recognised in Solar Pesticides and Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal (Paras 17-23). Distinguishing GAIL (India), it held the appellate reading unsustainable (Paras 21, 27). The Department’s appeal was allowed and the penalty of Rs. 25,18,205 restored, payable within eight weeks after adjustment of pre-deposits (Order). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v K.M.B. Facility Management Services 2026-juristway.com-3188-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 29 October 2026 In Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v. K.M.B. Facility Management Services, 2026-juristway.com-3188-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a supplier of security, cleaning and maintenance services to South Western Railways had charged and collected GST from April 2018 to March 2021 but filed nil or no GSTR-3B, the shortfall being detected from the recipient’s GSTR-7, and after a notice dated 23.11.2021 under Section 76 paid Rs. 43,63,237 by DRC-03 in September 2022, and the first appellate authority deleted the Section 76 penalty on the view that the provision does not apply to registered suppliers (Paras 3-5), the Tribunal held that “every person” and “any amount” in Section 76(1) are of the widest amplitude and draw no distinction based on registration, following R.K. Transport & Constructions (Paras 16-17). Distinguishing GAIL (India) as concerning tax already deposited through another registration, and relying on the fiduciary character of tax collected from recipients recognised in Solar Pesticides, it held the deletion of penalty unsustainable (Paras 18-20). The Department’s appeal was allowed and the penalty equal to the tax restored, to be paid within eight weeks after adjustment of pre-deposits (Order). GSTAT · Pune ● Dismissed M/s. Indermal Aidanmal Oswal v The Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune-II 2026-juristway.com-3187-GSTAT(Pune)-GST 29 October 2026 In M/s Indermal Aidanmal Oswal v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune-II, 2026-juristway.com-3187-GSTAT(Pune)-GST , where, after an audit, a Section 73 order confirmed ITC of Rs. 31,115 on invoices of a supplier whose registration was cancelled retrospectively, and interest of Rs. 3,80,408 on ITC relating to 2018-19 supplies not paid for within 180 days, with the penalty reduced in first appeal to Rs. 20,000 (Paras 2-7), the Tribunal held that the appellant, producing no invoice, payment proof or transport evidence, had not discharged its burden under Section 155 on the ITC, which it had in any event paid by DRC-03 (Paras 14-17). On interest, it held that the amended provisions quoted below did not govern 2018-19, but that under the second proviso to Section 16(2) and Rule 37 as then in force, the liability with interest arose from the Act itself; the non-operation of GSTR-2 affected only reporting; a recipient cannot escape interest by not reversing the credit; and eventual payment to suppliers only permits re-availment under the third proviso (Paras 18-26). The penalty of Rs. 10,000 under each of the Central and State Acts, totalling Rs. 20,000 as IGST, was upheld, and the appeal dismissed with directions to quantify interest on tax and adjust the pre-deposit and DRC-03 payment (Paras 27-30). GSTAT · Pune ● Dismissed M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited v The Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra 2026-juristway.com-3186-GSTAT(Pune)-GST 29 October 2026 In M/s Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra, 2026-juristway.com-3186-GSTAT(Pune)-GST , where the appellant, having charged GST at 12% instead of the concessional 5% on a canned motor pump supplied to the Department of Atomic Energy under an invoice dated 16.03.2018 and paid through GSTR-3B filed on 22.04.2018, discovered the error in 2024-25 and sought refund of Rs. 91,00,000 on 04.07.2025, which was rejected and upheld in first appeal as time-barred (Paras 2-8), the Tribunal held that the relevant date under the residuary clause of the Explanation to Section 54 is the date of payment, 22.04.2018, and that Section 54 does not provide for limitation to run from discovery of a mistake (Paras 19-24). Distinguishing Mafatlal Industries, Rajendra Narayan Mohanty and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation as recognising the writ remedy, and following the Karnataka Division Bench in Merck Life Science, which reversed the Single Judge’s view that the limit is directory, it held that no statutory authority can sanction a refund filed beyond two years, leaving the appellant to Article 226 (Paras 25-37). The appeal was dismissed and the unjust enrichment question not reached (Paras 38-39). GSTAT · Cuttack ● Partly Allowed Sanjeeb Kumar Dehuri v Mukesh Kumar Kakani 2026-juristway.com-3185-GSTAT(Cuttack)-GST 29 October 2026 In Sanjeeb Kumar Dehuri v. Mukesh Kumar Kakani, 2026-juristway.com-3185-GSTAT(Cuttack)-GST , where the Department sought restoration of a Section 74 demand against a retailer of FMCG goods that had not filed returns from August 2017 to February 2018 until anti-evasion officers visited on 19.04.2018, after which it filed all returns discharging Rs. 73,58,992 — 98.7% through ITC — having deposited the cash estimate on 31.03.2018 before the visit, and the first appellate authority had held Section 74 inapplicable and reduced the penalty to Rs. 7,35,900 under Section 73(9) (Paras 4-6), the Tribunal noted that no notice under Section 46 or best judgment proceeding had preceded the inspection, and that the Section 74 proceeding of 27.12.2022 sought tax already paid (Para 9). It held that Explanation 2 to Section 74 addresses non-declaration in a return or document furnished, that the taxpayer’s pre-visit deposit and payment of interest showed no intent to withhold, and that Section 74 could not be invoked (Paras 9-10.4). The appellate finding on Section 74 was upheld, but its modification of the penalty was set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to determine liability, if any, under Section 73, subject to the statutory limit (Para 10.5). GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed M/s. Sarthak Traders v Commissioner Uttar Prades State Tax, Grade -2 (Appeal) Prayagraj & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3184-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 29 October 2026 In M/s Sarthak Traders v. Commissioner, U.P. State Tax, Grade-2 (Appeal), Prayagraj, 2026-juristway.com-3184-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where an ex parte order dated 16.08.2024 confirmed, among other things, ITC of Rs. 1,92,949.93 for 2019-20 as excess over GSTR-2A, and the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 06.02.2025 without dealing with the plea that the excess was unavailed 2018-19 credit, relying on Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST to require CA or supplier certificates (Paras 1-11), the Tribunal held that under Section 107(12), as explained in Archita Tour and Travels, the appellate authority had to decide the grounds raised even in the appellant’s absence (Paras 13-18). Choosing to decide on merits, it held that GSTR-2A is a facilitation tool and Section 16(2)(aa) operates only from 01.01.2022, that the circular did not apply as no supplier default existed, and, on invoice-wise verification it directed and undertook, that the excess was 2018-19 credit availed in April and July 2019 within the permitted time (Paras 19-29). The ITC demand with interest and penalty was quashed, the accepted output tax of Rs. 7,572.44 left undisturbed, and refund of the pre-deposit with interest under Section 115 directed (Para 30). HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Ram Traders Thru. its Proprietor Shri Ram Milan Thru. Auth. Representative Shri Pramod Kumar v U.O.I. Thru. The Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3217-HC(Allahabad)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Ram Traders v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3217-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner's registration was cancelled by order dated 21.05.2026 and its application for revocation was rejected by order dated 09.09.2026 on an issue relating to non-deposit of input tax credit, the Division Bench held that the authorities ought to have initiated recovery under Sections 73 and 74 instead of cancelling registration (para 3), that the action was not in consonance with the procedure established by law (para 4), and that, the petitioner having regularly filed returns, there was no justification for cancellation (para 5); the authorities were directed to allow revocation in accordance with law, with liberty to issue a show cause notice for any other violation. HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Amit Engineering Corporation v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3216-HC(Allahabad)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Amit Engineering Corporation v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3216-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where, for FY 2021-22, a show cause notice dated 24.09.2025 uploaded under "additional notices" proposed tax of Rs. 73,42,612 and equal penalty against a works contractor in electricity transmission, the reply was filed on 27.11.2025, an order dated 26.12.2025 imposed tax of Rs. 1,34,59,352, penalty of Rs. 14,12,278 and interest of Rs. 1,02,92,451 aggregating Rs. 2,51,64,081, and the appeal filed with a delay of two months was rejected on 03.06.2026 in Form GST APL-02 in a cyclostyled manner, the petitioner confining the challenge to the appellate order, the court held that an applicant seeking condonation is entitled to fair consideration of the grounds, that "reasons are heartbeats" and conclusions must show deliberation, and that the appellate order lacking this could not stand (para 11); the order dated 03.06.2026 was set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh speaking order within two months, with liberty to challenge the original order later. HC · Uttarakhand ● Other M/s. Kotdwar Steel Limited v Office of The Deputy Commissioner & Another 2026-juristway.com-3198-HC(Uttarakhand)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Kotdwar Steel Ltd. v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner, 2026-juristway.com-3198-HC(Uttarakhand)-GST , where a registered taxpayer sought directions to remove negative blocks placed on its electronic credit ledger for different periods, the parties agreed that more than one year had elapsed since the restriction was imposed, and the petitioner stated that the underlying demand had since been assessed and was pending in appeal (Paras 2-5), the court held that, the restriction ceasing to have effect after one year under Rule 86A(3), no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitions pending (Para 4). The petitions were disposed of, with liberty to the GST authorities to proceed as per law (Para 6). HC · Gujarat ● Bail Granted Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka v State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026-juristway.com-3197-HC(Gujarat)-GST 28 October 2026 In Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka v. State of Gujarat, 2026-juristway.com-3197-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where the applicant, accused under Section 132 in File No. DGGI/INT/INTL/696/2026-GR-1 of availing fake ITC of about Rs. 43-44 crore through two firms, contended that he was merely an accountant, while DGGI alleged that he had forged documents and obtained registrations and that investigation was continuing (Paras 2-5), the court held that the statutory period being over, further investigation and the recording of witnesses’ statements were no ground to refuse bail, that apprehension of tampering could be addressed by conditions under the triple test as recognised in Vineet Jain, and that nothing remained to be recovered from the applicant (Para 7). Applying Sanjay Chandra and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, it granted regular bail subject to conditions including surrender of passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, reporting to the police station twice a month for three months and cooperating with the investigation (Paras 8-9). Load more
