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 Surya Prakash Aroma v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3183-HC(Allahabad)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Surya Prakash Aroma v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3183-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a demand arising from an ASMT-10 dated 25.07.2023 on ITC of Rs. 2,21,940 each under CGST and SGST auto-populated in Table 8A of the 2017-18 GSTR-9 was appealed late, and the appellate authority by order dated 04.07.2025 rejected the appeal holding it had no power to condone delay beyond 90 plus 30 days, the petitioner pleading that the sole proprietor was suffering from cancer, supported by medical certificates (Paras 3-8), the court, recording the State’s consent to a hearing on merits subject to costs, held that matters should be decided on merits (Para 9). The appellate order was set aside, the delay condoned and the appeal restored, to be decided within three months, subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000 by 13.11.2026 (Para 9). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Garg Duplex & Paper Mills Private Limited v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3182-HC(Allahabad)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Garg Duplex & Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3182-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where ITC of Rs. 38,63,690.55 on 2017-18 purchases of waste paper from two registered suppliers that had filed returns but not deposited tax was denied under Section 74 by an order dated 11.05.2023 demanding Rs. 1,57,74,197, and the appellate authority, while recording that the petitioner had produced invoices, e-way bills, bilties, weighment slips, ledgers and banking evidence and that there was no fraud, directed redetermination under Section 73(9) (Paras 4-6, 12-13), the petitioner contended that the appellate authority could not mechanically direct the proper officer to proceed under a particular provision (Paras 9-10). Noting that Shaurya Alloys requires the proper officer to apply an independent mind to whether the purchaser is liable under Section 16(2)(c), and on the State’s suggestion, the court left the appellate findings in the petitioner’s favour undisturbed but modified the order to direct the proper officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, bearing in mind the cited decisions, by a reasoned order after hearing, within four months (Paras 14-19). The Revenue remains free to proceed against the defaulting suppliers (Para 21). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Dismissed Kiran Bhatia v Prabha Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2026-juristway.com-3181-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 28 October 2026 In Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh v. Prabha Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3181-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where the Department challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 19.10.2023 upholding a refund of Rs. 44,14,988 of accumulated ITC on exports for June to September 2020, contending that Rs. 19,67,885 related to invoices whose goods were shipped after the refund period (Paras 1, 3-4), the Tribunal, following Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia, held that the invoices were issued within the relevant period and the goods admittedly exported, so the refund was admissible (Paras 6-10). It directed correction of the cause title to name the Commissioner as appellant under Rule 33(2) of the GSTAT Procedure Rules and dismissed the appeal (Paras 2, 11). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Bang Poly Packs (A Division of Bang Data Forms Pvt Ltd) v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3180-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Bang Poly Packs v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, 2026-juristway.com-3180-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where PP woven fabric, wastage and scrap being returned on 24.01.2024 by a job worker in Karnataka to its principal’s unit in Solapur, Maharashtra, under a delivery challan and an e-way bill marked as job work, were detained and tax and penalty of Rs. 1,08,882 each imposed under Section 129 because IGST had not been charged on an inter-State movement, and the first appellate authority upheld the order on contradictory reasoning (Paras 2-4, 15), the Tribunal admitted an additional ground of law under National Thermal Power Co. but held that demanding tax and penalty under the pre-amended Section 129(1)(a) instead of the post-01.01.2022 penalty was an error that did not make the order void (Paras 9-12). On merits, it held that under Section 143 the dispatch to and return from a job worker is not taxable, that the documents met Rules 55 and 138, and that the absence of IGST disclosed no contravention (Paras 13-16). The orders were set aside and refund of Rs. 2,17,764 with statutory interest directed within eight weeks (Order). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Needs Manpower Support Services Pvt Ltd v The Commissioner, The Commissioner of Central Taxes Vanijya Therige Bengaluru & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3179-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Needs Manpower Support Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Taxes, 2026-juristway.com-3179-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where, after an audit for July 2017 to March 2020, penalty under Section 74 was imposed and upheld on four items — RCM on legal and sponsorship services, RCM on small purchases from unregistered persons, RCM on rent-a-cab services, and non-reversal of ITC on amounts written off to a vendor, the last paid with tax of Rs. 31,585, interest and 15% penalty — on the ground that the values were not shown in GSTR-3B and constituted suppression under Explanation 2 (Paras 2-7), the Tribunal held that the question is whether the omission satisfied the statutory requirements of Section 74, not merely whether tax was paid late (Para 9). Applying Tata Steel and Instruction No. 05/2023-GST, it found that the appellant’s explanations on each item had not been considered, that the information was in the records audited, and that no intent to evade was shown (Paras 14-20). The order-in-appeal was set aside and the penalty cancelled (Order). HC · Delhi ● Other Manoj Kumar Prop M.K. Steel Traders v Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr. 2026-juristway.com-3165-HC(Delhi)-GST 28 October 2026 In Manoj Kumar v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, 2026-juristway.com-3165-HC(Delhi)-GST , where the petitioner, whose statement recorded on 19.05.2023 described him as distributing invoices unsupported by supplies against commission, challenged orders dated 04.02.2025 demanding Rs. 6,14,568 and Rs. 2,93,53,860 under Section 74, contending that the common notice dated 01.08.2024 lacked particulars, relying on G.R. Infra Projects, and that penalty had been imposed without being proposed (Paras 3-12), the court found that the notice, running to about 80 pages, set out the modus operandi and the roles of the noticees, and that being common to some 158 noticees did not make it deficient (Paras 16-18, 29-30). Holding that G.R. Infra Projects requires the factual basis for Section 74 to appear in the notice but that its application depends on the notice’s contents, and that the penalty objection could be examined on appeal, the court relegated the petitioner to the statutory remedy, expressing no view on merits, with any application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to be considered by the appellate authority (Paras 19-36). GSTAT · Cuttack ● Allowed Priya Gupta v Avay Vincent Minz, The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, O/O The Additional Commission of CT & GST Sundargarh Rourkela & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3164-GSTAT(Cuttack)-GST 28 October 2026 In Smt. Priya Gupta v. Avay Vincent Minz, Joint Commissioner of State Tax, 2026-juristway.com-3164-GSTAT(Cuttack)-GST , where ITC of Rs. 8,95,252 on purchases in January 2018 from M/s Annapurna Enterprises, whose registration was cancelled on 06.07.2019 after it was reported non-existent, was disallowed under Section 74 with interest of Rs. 9,15,364 and equal penalty by orders dated 31.05.2022 and 31.07.2024 (Paras 1-2), the Tribunal held that the authorities had treated the retrospective cancellation as conclusive without examining the appellant’s transactions, and that once evidence of receipt is produced the Department must verify it (Paras 23-35). It held that denial of cross-examination did not vitiate proceedings capable of resolution on documents, but that the Section 74 notice, founded only on the supplier’s non-existence, lacked foundational facts under G.R. Infra Projects and Tata Steel and was invalid (Paras 36-44). As the notice dated 27.12.2021 for 2017-18 was within the extended Section 73(2) limit of 30.09.2023, it directed redetermination under Section 75(2) as if issued under Section 73(1), on consideration of all evidence including that produced before the Tribunal, without treating the cancellation as conclusive (Paras 45-50). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Allowed Ashwani Kumar Sharma v Bhagat Deepak Kumar, Joint Commissioner, Ludhiana Chandigarh & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3163-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s JSW Vallabh Tin Plate Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh, 2026-juristway.com-3163-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where transitional credit of Rs. 2,13,593 on capital goods received before 01.07.2017, on which no CENVAT credit had been taken because inspection was pending, was disallowed on the ground that Section 140(2) covers only the unavailed balance where part credit had been taken, and Rs. 1,54,400 of it was further denied as having been claimed against a single invoice carrying an annexure of 81 invoices (Paras 3-5, 8), the Tribunal followed its decision in Deltron to hold that Section 140(2) and Rule 117(2)(a) do not restrict transition to 50% and allow the full unavailed credit where it is admissible under both laws (Paras 9-10). On the second ground, accepting that only the first invoice number had been entered in TRAN-1 by oversight and that all 81 invoices were available, it directed the original authority to verify them and allow the credit within one month (Paras 11-16). It also directed correction of the cause title under Rule 33(1) of the GSTAT Procedure Rules (Para 2). The appellant was held entitled to the entire credit of Rs. 2,13,593, subject to that verification (Para 17). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Partly Allowed Twinkle Papers Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3162-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Twinkle Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, 2026-juristway.com-3162-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where a demand of Rs. 8,06,803 for 2018-19 with equal penalty under Section 74 was confirmed because HDPE drums supplied at 0.1% IGST to merchant exporters had moved to distilleries at Patiala and Yamuna Nagar, where they were filled with ENA and then exported (Paras 1-7), the Tribunal, following Time Technoplast, in which the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, held that condition (vi) of Notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) is substantive and mandatory, and that Mangalore Chemicals did not assist (Paras 11-28). It held, however, that Section 74 could not be invoked for supplies to two exporters, since the appellant had informed the Department in advance by letters that the drums would go to the distilleries — letters relied upon in the notice itself — and that the allegation of mis-declaration was untenable because ENA can only be exported in containers and the shipping bills named the appellant’s drums (Paras 29-38). Section 74 was sustained for one invoice to a third exporter for which no intimation was given (Para 39). The tax for the first two exporters is to be redetermined under Section 75(2) as if under Section 73, with interest and Section 73 penalty, and the entire tax is to be recomputed on a cum-tax basis under Section 15(2) and Rule 35 (Paras 43-48). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Partly Allowed Bharat Packaging Industries v Sunil N Ranote, Additional Commissioner Appeals, Chandigarh & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3161-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Bharat Packaging Industries v. Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh, 2026-juristway.com-3161-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where an audit for July 2017 to March 2023 led to a consolidated notice dated 29.07.2024 under Section 74 demanding GST on rental income of Rs. 7,25,436 from a property in Punjab, RCM on freight, excess ITC of Rs. 2,18,590, blocked credit of Rs. 5,966 and late fee, confirmed on 04.02.2025 and upheld on 25.03.2026 (Paras 1-4), the Tribunal held that jurisdiction follows the supplier’s registered place of business in Chandigarh under Section 2(71), the property’s location in Punjab only making the supply inter-State, and that, following RLCR 7 Super Market, a consolidated notice for multiple years is valid (Paras 6-10, 19-20). Applying Tata Steel, it held that Section 74 was wrongly invoked for amounts declared in returns, particularly the ITC difference the adjudicating authority itself found revenue-neutral, but rightly invoked for the undeclared rental income (Paras 21-28). The rental demand with equal penalty and the late fee were upheld; the other demands were directed to be redetermined under Section 75(2) as if issued under Section 73, with the admissibility of the excess and blocked credit remanded for fresh decision regardless of GSTR-2A reflection (Paras 15, 18, 29). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Dismissed Shruti Bansal v Gurudev Sales Corporation 2026-juristway.com-3160-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 28 October 2026 In Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh v. M/s Gurudev Sales Corporation, 2026-juristway.com-3160-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where the Department appealed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 14.05.2024 upholding a refund of Rs. 26,68,324 of ITC on exports without payment of tax for April to October 2022, contending that FOB value of Rs. 74,724 under three shipping bills dated 01.11.2022 fell outside the refund period and should be excluded from the turnover of zero-rated supply (Paras 1, 3-4), the Tribunal followed its decision in Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (Paras 6-7). It held that the invoices were issued within the relevant period and the goods were admittedly exported, so the value was rightly included (Paras 8-10). Noting that under Section 112(3) and Rule 33(2) of the GSTAT Procedure Rules the Commissioner, and not the filing officer, is the appellant, it directed correction of the cause title and dismissed the appeal (Paras 2, 11). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Partly Allowed M/s. New Star Trading Company v Shri HC Verma, Addl. Comm. Appeals CGST & CX Appeal Allahabad, & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3159-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s New Star Trading Company v. Shri H.C. Verma, Additional Commissioner (Appeals), 2026-juristway.com-3159-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where ITC of Rs. 7,69,456 on purchases in 2017-18 and 2018-19 from M/s Raj Trade Link Corporation, Ghaziabad and M/s Diamond Enterprises, Bhopal was denied under Section 74, and the First Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty from Rs. 76,946 to Rs. 7,69,456, the appellant relied on invoices, e-way bills, weighment slips, ledgers and banking payments (Paras 1-3.9), the Tribunal, on RTO reports obtained at its direction, found that the vehicles shown were untraceable, lacked permits, insurance or fitness, had been sold in 2012, or in one case could carry only 1,690 kg against 19,215 kg declared, and that both suppliers had been adjudicated non-existent (Paras 4.2-4.6). Following Ecom Gill Coffee Trading and Malik Traders, it held that goods had not moved, that Section 16(2)(b) was not satisfied, and that the appellant had not discharged its burden under Section 155 (Paras 4.7-5.4.1). Finding, however, that Section 122 penalty had been imposed alongside Section 74 without reasons and, in first appeal, enhanced without hearing, contrary to Section 75(13), it set aside the penalties and remanded their redetermination, otherwise rejecting the appeal (Para 5.5, Order). GSTAT · Varanasi ● Allowed Ankit Traders v Commissioner State Tax & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3158-GSTAT(Varanasi)-GST 28 October 2026 In M/s Ankit Traders v. Commissioner, State Tax, 2026-juristway.com-3158-GSTAT(Varanasi)-GST , where areca nuts moving from a supplier in Purbo Kitterbond, Assam to the appellant in Kanpur under e-invoices and e-way bills were intercepted on 03.02.2024 because the transporter’s goods receipts and the driver’s statement showed Kolkata as the place of dispatch, and a penalty of Rs. 1,60,216 imposed on 05.02.2024 was upheld in first appeal, the appellant explaining that the goods had moved by rail to Kolkata and thence by road (Paras 1-8), the Tribunal found that both consignments were accounted for in returns, reflected in GSTR-2A, and taxed in Uttar Pradesh (Paras 11, 22). Following K.S. Traders, Jindal Pipes, Saumya and Sangeeta Jain, it held that a technical mismatch in the place of dispatch without intent to evade does not attract Section 129 (Paras 17-22). The orders were quashed and refund of any penalty paid directed (Para 23). HC · Gujarat ● Bail Granted Ayush Sureshchandra Shah v State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026-juristway.com-3178-HC(Gujarat)-GST 27 October 2026 In Ayush Sureshchandra Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2026-juristway.com-3178-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where the applicants, in custody since 22.06.2026 on complaints by the State Tax Enforcement Division, Junagadh under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c), sought regular bail after the chargesheet, and the State opposed on the ground that they had created 21 fictitious firms to avail ITC of about Rs. 325 crore without transport of goods and that further investigation might increase the amount (Paras 2-4), the court, applying Sanjay Chandra and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, held that the trial would take time, that keeping the accused in custody would amount to pre-trial conviction, and that bail is the rule and jail the exception under Article 21 (Paras 5-7). Bail was granted on conditions, with release subject to the applicants not being required in any other case (Paras 8-10). GSTAT · Hyderabad ● Remanded Meera Associates v Seshagiri Rao Totakura, Deputy Commissioner Secunderabad Stu 1 & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3177-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Meera Associates v. Seshagiri Rao Totakura, Deputy Commissioner, 2026-juristway.com-3177-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST , where a railway lease-holder transporting hatching eggs by rail had reported its 2017-18 receipts as taxable in GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, and a demand for under-declared liability and excess ITC was confirmed and largely upheld in first appeal on the footing that no evidence of exemption had been produced (Paras 2-7), the Tribunal found that railway parcel waybills, invoices and other documents had in fact been filed, so that the orders were non-speaking under S.N. Mukherjee (Paras 9-10.4). Noting Railway Board Freight Marketing Circular No. 3 of 2019 treating fresh eggs as agricultural produce, the exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) for rail transport of agricultural produce, Share Medical Care on claiming exemption at a later stage, and the grant of the same exemption for 2021-22 by order dated 29.11.2025, it held that the appellant deserved an opportunity to claim the benefit (Paras 11-11.3). The order was set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh decision within eight weeks (Para 12). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed M/s Advaith Motors Private Limited v The Commissioner of Central GST, Bengaluru South Commissionerate 2026-juristway.com-3176-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central GST, Bengaluru South, 2026-juristway.com-3176-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a Hyundai dealer was held liable to differential compensation cess of Rs. 9,76,21,566 for 11.09.2017 to 31.07.2023 on the Creta 1.6L, Tucson 2.0L and Alcazar 2.0L, on the footing that their unladen ground clearance, taken from foreign websites and portals, exceeded 170 mm so that Entry 52B at 22% applied instead of Entry 52A at 20% (Paras 1-15), the Tribunal held that, the term being undefined before 26.07.2023, it must be read as understood under motor vehicle law, where IS 9435 measures ground clearance laden, and that a charging entry is construed in favour of the assessee in case of doubt (Paras 70-77). It held the substituted entry and Explanation in Notification No. 03/2023 to be an enlargement of the levy and prospective, in line with Vatika Township, Martin Lottery, Circular No. 247/04/2025-GST, Mercedes-Benz India and Popular Motor World (Paras 78-89). Accepting the ARAI certificates showing laden clearance of 165 mm, 135 mm and 154 mm, and placing the burden on the Revenue, it rejected the website material as untested (Paras 90-96). Though holding that a dealer remains responsible for the correct rate on its own supplies, it set aside the entire demand, with interest and penalty (Paras 97-103). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Fortinet Technologies India Private Limited v The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) -5. 3, Bengaluru 2026-juristway.com-3175-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 27 October 2026 In Fortinet Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-5.3, 2026-juristway.com-3175-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where, after an audit for 2017-18, only a summary in Form GST DRC-01 dated 21.03.2023 was issued proposing RCM tax on two “office meals” ledger entries, the order confirming Rs. 4,75,500 was signed on 26.04.2023 — two days before the appellant’s reply — without any hearing, and the first appellate authority upheld it on new grounds of RCM on an unregistered outdoor caterer or forward charge on employee recoveries (Paras 2.3-2.16, 4.24, 4.47), the Tribunal held, following Metal Forgings, Brindavan Beverages, Armour Security, Construction Catalysers and NKAS Services, that the summary cannot substitute for a notice under Section 73(1), that the defect is not curable under Section 160, and that the denial of hearing under Section 75(4) vitiated the order (Paras 4.3-4.29). It declined to quash for want of DIN or RFN, as the CBIC circulars bind central officers and the Karnataka RFN circular was issued only on 23.05.2023 (Paras 4.30-4.45). Holding that the appellate authority could not sustain the demand on unnotified grounds, and that on merits neither Section 9(3) nor Section 9(4) had been established for the entries, it allowed the appeal and set aside the tax, interest and penalty (Paras 4.46-4.64, 5.2). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed M/s. Radikan Engineers & Consultants v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru 2026-juristway.com-3174-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Radikan Engineers & Consultants v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2026-juristway.com-3174-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a Section 73 demand of CGST and SGST of Rs. 1,11,540 each for 2019-20, based on tax in GSTR-1 exceeding GSTR-3B, was confirmed against an elderly works contractor who explained that a B2C supply of Rs. 18,59,000 to government deductors had been reported twice, the adjudicating authority citing a possible double credit and the first appellate authority treating the unamended return as conclusive (Paras 6-21), the Tribunal rejected the challenge to jurisdiction, holding that Section 73 is self-contained, that neither ASMT-10 nor ADT-02 is a precondition, that Section 65(7) neither confers nor confines the power, and that findings of scrutiny or audit do not bind the adjudicating authority (Paras 40-127). On merits, it held that the return is an admission shifting the burden of explanation but not conclusive proof of a further supply; that the deductors’ GSTR-7 returns and the Revenue’s own figures reconciled exactly with a single duplicated entry; and that the double-credit ground was never put in the notice and was contrary to the record, as Table 7 supplies do not reach any recipient’s GSTR-2A (Paras 128-173). The demand with interest and penalty was set aside, the Revenue’s request for further verification declined, and the unchallenged decision on the separate Rs. 10 lakh turnover issue left undisturbed (Para 187). HC · Allahabad ● Dismissed M/s Kushwaha Etta and Building Material Suppliar v State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026-juristway.com-3157-HC(Allahabad)-GST 27 October 2026 In M/s Kushwaha Etta and Building Material Suppliar v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3157-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a building material dealer that had received Rs. 12,01,725 for works for Nagar Panchayat Kabrai, subject to TDS, suffered an ex parte order under Section 74(9) dated 02.09.2022 and a penalty of Rs. 1,44,207, its appeal being rejected on 09.12.2024, and contended that the case involved no fraud or mens rea and that the tax had since been paid (Paras 4-5, 9, 12), the court noted from the memorandum of appeal that the tax had been deposited and the delay attributed to the dealer’s accountant (Para 12). Holding that, the quantum being undisputed, non-payment within time attracts penalty and interest, and that the petition filed on 05.09.2026, about two years after the appellate order, reflected a lack of diligence, the court dismissed the petition (Paras 13-14). Load more
