HC · Allahabad ● Remanded Ashish Kumar Srivastava v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3141-HC(Allahabad)-GST 27 October 2026 In Ashish Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3141-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a show cause notice dated 11.01.2024 for 2018-19 proposed tax of Rs. 4,29,065 and penalty of Rs. 42,907, but the order dated 29.04.2024 under Section 73 confirmed tax of Rs. 5,47,000 and penalty of Rs. 54,700, the court held that the order, confirming a demand in excess of that proposed, violated the mandatory bar in Section 75(7) and was without jurisdiction (Paras 2-4). The order was set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh order after hearing, preferably within three months, on the petitioner’s undertaking not to seek undue adjournments (Paras 5-6). GSTAT · Ghaziabad ● Allowed M/s. Fiberhome India Private Limited v Lalit Mishra, Additional Commissioner, Noida & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3140-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Fiberhome India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lalit Mishra, Additional Commissioner, Noida, 2026-juristway.com-3140-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST , where the appellant had paid IGST through its credit ledger in 2017-18 on supplies to BSNL later found to be intra-State, paid CGST and SGST of Rs. 1,25,21,480 each through DRC-03 dated 04.02.2020, and recredited Rs. 2,50,42,960 as IGST in its GSTR-3B for February 2020, and a Section 73 demand of that amount with interest of Rs. 1,84,06,576 and penalty of Rs. 25,04,296 was upheld in first appeal (Paras 1-5), the Tribunal held that the notice, which reproduced Section 16(2) without identifying the condition said to have failed, and the non-speaking orders that followed, could not sustain the demand on grounds never disclosed (Paras 13-28). Holding that the mistaken IGST payment does not make the recredit eligible ITC, it nevertheless held that payments under the correct heads cannot be ignored, that the entitlement to refund under Section 19(1) of the IGST Act was substantially undisputed, and that Section 77(2) of the CGST Act excludes interest (Paras 29-43). The demand, interest and penalty were set aside, the DRC-03 payments directed to be recognised, and the authority directed to reconcile the original IGST payment with the recredit, without any duplicate refund or credit (Paras 44.1-44.3). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed Sanjeev Kumar Niranjan v M/s. Time Steels 2026-juristway.com-3139-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 24 October 2026 In Sanjeev Kumar Niranjan v. M/s Time Steels, 2026-juristway.com-3139-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the Revenue challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 13.04.2022 setting aside confiscation under Section 130 and tax, penalty and redemption fine of Rs. 63,000 each (Rs. 1,89,000 in all), imposed after an SIB survey on 20.03.2018 found stock of M.S. wire and flats not reflected in the running ledger, the Tribunal found that the entries existed in the books, that an invoice dated 19.03.2018 for 9.56 MT preceded the survey and was reported in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and that the delay arose from the accountant’s leave from 18.03.2018 to 20.03.2018 (Paras 1.1-1.3, 5.3-5.4). It held that a delayed entry of a genuine transaction is not an unaccounted transaction, noted that the stock had been estimated by eye rather than weighed, and held that the Department, having accepted most of the explanation in parallel Section 74 proceedings that reduced the variance to 1.750 MT, could not treat the same stock as confiscable (Paras 5.4-5.6). The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed (Para 5.7). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3138-HC(Allahabad)-GST 23 October 2026 In M/s Barnala Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3138-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged an order dated 03.09.2025 for 2023-24 on a show cause notice dated 02.01.2025 under Section 74, contending that the notice lacked jurisdiction and that no hearing was granted after its reply dated 29.03.2025 requesting a date (Paras 2-5), the court declined to examine the jurisdictional challenge in writ, since the petitioner had participated and not challenged the notice for ten months, and held that Godrej Sara Lee does not require intervention wherever lack of jurisdiction is alleged (Paras 6-9). However, noting that the proceedings remained pending for seven months with no further notice or date of hearing, contrary to the scheme of Section 75(5), the court held that reasonable opportunity was denied, set aside the order, and directed a fresh order that also deals with the objection on lack of jurisdiction under Section 74 (Paras 10-14). HC · Gujarat ● Allowed Panila Chem Limited & Anr. v State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3121-HC(Gujarat)-GST 23 October 2026 In Panila Chem Limited & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3121-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where the appellate authority allowed the appeal against Section 129 detention on 28.02.2022 directing refund of ₹5,41,032/-, the physical copy was received on 08.03.2022 but the APL-04 summary was uploaded on the portal only on 03.06.2024 following departmental instructions, and the refund application filed on 04.06.2024 was rejected as time-barred, the Court held that (i) the relevant date under Explanation 2(d) to Section 54 is ordinarily the date of communication of the order and the petitioner could have filed offline, (ii) however, in the peculiar circumstances where the APL-04 delay was attributable to the department and the petitioner filed the very next day, procedural law must serve justice not obstruct it (Sambhaji, SC), (iii) continued retention violates Articles 265 and 300A and would indirectly revive the quashed demand, (iv) directed refund with 6% interest from 15.08.2024 within 12 weeks, failing which 9% interest applies. HC · Gujarat ● Dismissed Hubergroup India Private Limited v Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3120-HC(Gujarat)-GST 23 October 2026 In Hubergroup India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3120-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where the petitioner, a manufacturer of pigments and printing ink, challenged the audit report dated 02.08.2024 and eight SCNs under Section 74 contending the audit for FY 2017-18 to 2019-20 was time-barred as documents were furnished by 09.08.2022 and three ADT-01 notices were issued, the Court held that the Explanation to Section 65(4) determines commencement of audit as the later of documents being made available or actual institution at the place of business, that the audit was actually instituted at the place of business on 19.06.2024 and the report issued on 02.08.2024 was within three months, but observed that where documents remain outstanding the authorities must inform the registered person of missing documents within a reasonable time, and dismissed the petition with liberty to reply and appeal. GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Other DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v Candeur Constructions 2026-juristway.com-3119-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 23 October 2026 In DGAP v. Candeur Constructions, 2026-juristway.com-3119-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where the DGAP found profiteering in the 'Candeur Carlisle' project (Bengaluru) developed under a Joint Development Agreement with Kamani Tubes Limited, with the ITC-to-purchase-value ratio increasing from 6.66% (pre-GST) to 8.36% (post-GST), and the respondent contended the project commenced only post-GST and the methodology was flawed under Reckitt Benckiser (Delhi HC), the Tribunal held that (i) the DGAP's purchase-value-based methodology is materially different from the ITC-to-turnover methodology rejected in Reckitt Benckiser and is aligned with LICHFL Care Homes (Delhi HC), (ii) pre-GST credit and purchase data from the respondent's own certified ST-3 and VAT returns cannot be disregarded merely because the Commencement Certificate was post-GST, (iii) the revised profiteered amount of ₹1,63,22,724/- (base ₹1,45,73,861/- plus 12% GST) is accepted, and directed the respondent to pass on the benefit to 188 eligible homebuyers with 18% interest from the date of collection. HC · Allahabad ● Bail Granted Subhash Gupta v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3127-HC(Allahabad)-GST 22 October 2026 In Subhash Gupta v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3127-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the applicant, not named in FIR No. 0323 of 2026 (Police Station Anwala, District Bareilly) under Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS read with Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act for passing ITC without inward supply, was implicated only through a co-accused’s confessional statement and had been in custody since 11.09.2026, the court noted that the GST Department could not dispute these submissions, that the complaint stood filed before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Meerut, with no charge shown to have been framed, and that the applicant had no criminal history (Paras 2-3, 12). Applying Sanjay Chandra, Atul Mehra, Vineet Jain, Ratnambar Kaushik and Manish Sisodia, the court held that no exceptional circumstance, risk of tampering or likelihood of flight had been shown to justify continued detention (Paras 6-16). Bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including non-tampering, appearance before the trial court and no travel abroad without permission (Para 18). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed Ajit Kumar Minz v M/s. B.L. Agro Industries Limited 2026-juristway.com-3126-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 22 October 2026 In Ajit Kumar Minz v. M/s B.L. Agro Industries Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3126-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where an edible-oil manufacturer had reversed ITC of Rs. 14.35 crore in its GSTR-3B for August 2018 after an Income Tax search reported a stock shortage, informing the Department by letter dated 08.10.2018 that the reversal was provisional, and the Department appealed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 02.09.2025 directing refund by credit to the electronic credit ledger, the Tribunal held that the reversal, disclosed in Table 4(B)(2) and not as output liability in Table 3.1, was not an admitted tax liability (Paras 5.4-5.9). It further held that pendency of investigation is not a determination of liability, that the Order-in-Original dated 23.12.2025 confirming a demand of Rs. 14.36 crore — passed after the impugned order and under appeal — could not be used to treat the 2018 reversal as payment towards it, and that rejection could not be sustained on grounds beyond the show cause notice (Paras 5.11-5.18, 5.25, 5.31-5.33). The Department’s appeal was dismissed, subject to verification of the claim under Section 54 (Paras 5.35, 6.1). GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Other DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v Savaliya Procon 2026-juristway.com-3112-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 22 October 2026 In DGAP v. Savaliya Procon, 2026-juristway.com-3112-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where the proceedings arose from a complaint under Rule 128 alleging profiteering in the 'Krish Elite' project (401 units), the DGAP after re-investigation (following the CCI remand in light of Reckitt Benckiser (Delhi HC)) found that out of 401 units, 175 units booked before BU Permission were relevant for investigation, that the ITC-to-purchase ratio decreased from 6.55% (pre-GST) to 5.77% (post-GST), and both parties accepted the DGAP findings, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP report and closed the proceedings. GSTAT · Thane ● Remanded M/s. Trivesh Enterprises LLP v Vijay Eknath Kumbhar, The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Thane/kalyan GST Department 2026-juristway.com-3111-GSTAT(Thane)-GST 22 October 2026 In M/s. Trivesh Enterprises LLP v. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Thane/Kalyan, 2026-juristway.com-3111-GSTAT(Thane)-GST , where a works contractor challenged denial of ITC of ₹4,89,456/- (FY 2020-21) and ₹6,80,142/- (FY 2021-22) on purchases from suppliers subsequently categorised as NGTPs with ab initio registration cancellation, the Tribunal found that the SCNs under the 'Brief Facts' and 'Grounds' sections contained only 'AS PER ATTACHMENT' without substantive reasoning, the OIO was a single-line disposal, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal concurrently on merits and for 'non-prosecution' despite written submissions and documentary evidence on record, held that dismissal for non-prosecution is legally unsustainable under Section 107(11)/(12) following Purushottam Stores (Patna HC) and CIT v. Premkumar Luthra (Bombay HC), and remanded for de novo adjudication. GSTAT · Thane ● Remanded Vikram Inderjit Kapur Director, M/s. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. v Rajesh Chandrakant Vishe The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur 2026-juristway.com-3110-GSTAT(Thane)-GST 22 October 2026 In Vikram Inderjit Kapur v. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur, 2026-juristway.com-3110-GSTAT(Thane)-GST , where a 100% EOU manufacturing absorbent cotton challenged partial rejection of 39 refund claims (June 2019 to September 2022) for 'Mismatch of ITC' where the Adjudicating Authority directly issued RFD-06 without issuing the mandatory RFD-08 notice or affording hearing, the Tribunal held that Rule 92(3) with its proviso is mandatory (use of 'shall' and absolute embargo), that a foundational procedural defect cannot be cured by merely affording hearing at the appellate stage, that the Appellate Authority ought to have remanded instead of demanding documents and deciding on merits, and remanded all 39 matters for de novo processing with directions for strict compliance with Rule 92(3). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed Ajit Kumar Minz v Natasha Automobiles Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-3109-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 21 October 2026 In Ajit Kumar Minz v. Natasha Automobiles Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3109-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA which had set aside the demand of differential Compensation Cess of ₹25,66,695/- on Hyundai Creta, Alcazar and Tucson vehicles on the ground that their laden ground clearance was below 170 mm per ARAI certification, the Tribunal held that (i) Creta, Alcazar and Tucson are undeniably SUVs in commercial and common parlance as consistently marketed by the manufacturer, (ii) the default manufactured state of a motor vehicle is its unladen state and imposing a 'laden condition' reading would amount to judicially adding words to the notification contrary to Dilip Kumar (SC) and Leisureland (SC), (iii) the Mercedes-Benz (Bombay HC) and Tata Motors (Maharashtra AAAR) rulings are persuasive but non-binding and are irreconcilable with strict construction principles, (iv) ARAI certification is relevant as technical evidence but is not conclusive for tax classification, (v) CBIC Circular No. 247/2025 does not mandate laden measurement for the pre-amendment period, and allowed the Revenue's appeal restoring the OIO with demand, interest and penalty. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Remanded Nitin Bakers Private Limited v Vijay Singh Visen, Deputy Commissioner, Kanpur & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3108-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 21 October 2026 In Nitin Bakers Private Limited v. Vijay Singh Visen & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3108-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where a bakery manufacturer challenged the demand of ₹56,24,458/- (tax ₹26,47,563/-, interest ₹26,62,217/- and penalty ₹3,14,678/-) under Section 73 arising from scrutiny of FY 2018-19 returns, the Tribunal found that (i) the ITC mismatch demand of ₹2,589.62/- was raised without verifying that GSTR-3B Table 4(C) showed negative net ITC after reversals, (ii) the major demand of ₹25,93,217.12/- arose from an incorrect comparison of GSTR-9 Table 9 with GSTR-9C Table 9P without examining the explanation in Table 10, (iii) the Rule 42/43 demand was raised treating all ITC as common credit without segregation, set aside both orders and remanded for de novo adjudication with proper verification. HC · Bombay ● Allowed Kairav Chemofarbe Industries Limited v The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3118-HC(Bombay)-GST 19 October 2026 In Kairav Chemofarbe Industries Limited v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3118-HC(Bombay)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the State authority's order denying ITC of ₹2,31,32,804/- for FY 2021-22 contending that DGGI and the Assistant Commissioner of CGST had already issued two SCNs dated 07.12.2023 and 11.08.2025 covering overlapping ITC denial for the same and earlier periods, the Court found that the adjudicating authority passed the order without examining the overlap contention, set aside the order, and remanded for fresh adjudication on merits including the Section 6(2)(b) and Armour Security (SC) points. GSTAT · Hyderabad ● Other Timmasarti Venkateswara Rao v Teqdatum Technologies Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-3142-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST 16 October 2026 In Timmasarti Venkateswara Rao v. Teqdatum Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3142-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST , where the Department appealed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 24.06.2025 by which the First Appellate Authority, relying on Telangana High Court decisions including Southern Enterprises (W.P. No. 2471 of 2023), condoned delay beyond the period permissible under Section 107(4) in an appeal against cancellation of registration under Section 29(2)(c) for six months’ non-filing, and the Department had thereafter restored the registration on payment of all dues (Paras 1-7), the Tribunal followed its Common Order Nos. 04 to 19/COURT-II/HYD/2026 dated 18.09.2026 (Paras 13-15). It held that the First Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction, since High Court orders under Article 226 confer no general power to condone beyond Section 107(4), but that the Department, having acted on the order and enabled the respondent to continue business, could not assail it, and no effective relief could be granted (Paras 16-18). The appeal was disposed of as infructuous and not maintainable (Paras 19-21). HC · Gujarat ● Allowed M/s. Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3117-HC(Gujarat)-GST 16 October 2026 In M/s. Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3117-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where the petitioner acquired GIDC leasehold rights from M/s Deepak Fertilizers for ₹117.10 crore (including GST of ₹17.86 crore) and subsequently assigned them to its subsidiary M/s Deepak Chem Tech for ₹150.91 crore with GST duly collected and deposited, and the Revenue issued SCNs under Section 74 alleging blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d), the Court followed Gujarat Chamber of Commerce & Industry and SCA No. 6623 of 2026 (03.09.2026) to hold that assignment of GIDC leasehold rights is not a 'supply' under Section 7 read with Schedule II/III, that Section 17(5)(d) presupposes a taxable inward supply and is inapplicable where no construction activity was undertaken, and quashed both SCNs. HC · Madras ● Allowed Galore Networks Private Ltd., M. Raju S/o Malayappan, K Balaji S/o Kulothungan v The Assistant Commissioner ST, The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bengaluru, The Branch Manager Axis Bank Ltd., The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank, The Branch Manager Dbs Bank Ltd 2026-juristway.com-3107-HC(Madras)-GST 16 October 2026 In Galore Networks Private Ltd. & Ors. v. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3107-HC(Madras)-GST , where the petitioners challenged ex parte orders contending notices were uploaded only under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab, the Court set aside the impugned orders, remanded for fresh consideration subject to 20% deposit within four weeks, directed de-freezure of bank accounts, and noted that for remaining unchallenged orders the petitioner agreed to pay tax in full. HC · Madras ● Partly Allowed M/s SPM Arts LLP Rep. by its Partner Sanjay Laalwani v M/s. Shri Abishek Pictures and 3 Others Rep. by its Partner Abishek Venkat Nama, Abhishek Venkat Nama Partner M/s. Shri Abishek Pictures, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal) Chennai-I, Chennai 2026-juristway.com-3106-HC(Madras)-GST 16 October 2026 In M/s SPM Arts LLP v. M/s. Shri Abishek Pictures & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3106-HC(Madras)-GST , where the plaintiff, having paid the entire consideration of ₹7.50 crore (inclusive of GST) for dubbing rights of the Telugu film 'Saakshyam' under a Deed of Assignment dated 05.02.2018 and Defendants 1 and 2 failed to remit the GST component of ₹42,85,714/- to the authorities resulting in proceedings against the plaintiff demanding ₹4,36,02,000/-, the Court decreed the suit in part against Defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally for ₹1,22,66,092/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of plaint till decree and 6% thereafter, holding the decree does not come in the way of statutory authorities proceeding against the plaintiff. GSTAT · Agra ● Remanded Satyendra Kumar Singh v Peoples Honda 2026-juristway.com-3105-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Satyendra Kumar Singh v. Peoples Honda, 2026-juristway.com-3105-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA which had set aside the Section 74 demand arising from a ₹14,19,144 adjustment in Column 5(O) of GSTR-9C relating to discounts/incentives from Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India, the Tribunal held that both lower authorities passed orders without adequate investigation, that Section 15(3) governs the supplier's taxable value and not the recipient's turnover, that the Department's new ground treating incentives as marketing services taxable under Section 7 was not in the SCN and therefore inadmissible, and remanded with specific directions for verification. 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. Load more
