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. 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. 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. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Devendra Singh v Hema Industries 2026-juristway.com-3060-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Devendra Singh v. Hema Industries, 2026-juristway.com-3060-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 25.03.2023 which had set aside the reversal of ITC ordered by the proper officer on account of GSTR-2A mismatch and non-existence of the supplier, the Tribunal held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be penalised for the post-transaction disappearance of a registered supplier, that reversal of ITC from a GSTR-2A mismatch alone without examining other evidence is not sustainable, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal upholding the OIA. GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Other Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v Commissioner, CGST, Shimla Commissionerate, Himachal Pradesh, Commissioner-CGST Dimapur, Nagaland Commissioner, CGST, Aizawl, Mizoram. Commissioner-Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pr. Commissioner, CGST, Patna-1 Commissionerate, Bihar Pr. Commissioner, GST & CE, Puducherry Commissionerate, Puducherry. and Others 2026-juristway.com-3059-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 16 October 2026 In Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v. Commissioner, CGST, Shimla Commissionerate & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3059-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where appeals filed by Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited were pending before multiple GSTAT state benches across Shimla, Dimapur, Aizawl, Raipur, Patna, Puducherry, Jaipur, Chennai, Hyderabad, Guwahati, Bhubaneswar, Dhanbad, Lucknow, Chandigarh and other locations, the President of GSTAT ordered transfer of all connected appeals to the Principal Bench, holding that where appeals pending before two or more state benches involve identical questions of law, only the Principal Bench has jurisdiction, and directed communication of the order to all Vice Presidents at the concerned state benches. GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed Gp Motors Private Limited v Commissioner, State Tax Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3058-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 16 October 2026 In Gp Motors Private Limited v. Commissioner, State Tax Lucknow & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3058-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where the appellant, a motor vehicle dealer, challenged the penalty of ₹1,96,000/- imposed under Section 129 for transporting vehicles between its own branches without generating an e-way bill, the Tribunal held that the movement was an undisputed stock transfer attracting no tax liability, that the virtual impossibility of tax evasion in stock transfers of uniquely identifiable registered motor vehicles and the absence of fraudulent intent ruled out penal measures under Section 129, quashed the penalty, and directed refund of any deposited amount with applicable interest. HC · Bombay ● Allowed Abracadabra India and Ors. v The Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3039-HC(Bombay)-GST 16 October 2026 In Abracadabra India and Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3039-HC(Bombay)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the order dated 31.03.2023 demanding ₹62,42,948/- as tax, interest and penalty, contending that the SCN and ASMT-10 notices were placed only in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' section in the Services tab of the GST portal and were not visible on the homepage under 'View Notices and Orders', the Court followed the Division Bench ruling in T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 6175) to hold that no mistake could be attributed to the petitioner, quashed the impugned order, the DRC-07 dated 31.03.2023 and the recovery letter dated 17.11.2023, directed both parties to appear before the respondent on 27.10.2026, and permitted fresh proceedings keeping the question of limitation open. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v M/s. Shri Shyam Kripa Associates 2026-juristway.com-3038-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v. M/s. Shri Shyam Kripa Associates, 2026-juristway.com-3038-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 13.06.2025 which had set aside the demand of excess ITC of ₹20,81,660/- and disallowed banking ITC of ₹9,184.92/- under Section 73, the Tribunal held that the taxpayer was entitled to claim deferred ITC for FY 2017-18 in FY 2019-20 under the retrospectively inserted Section 16(5) of the CGST Act (per A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd., Sikkim HC), that the GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch was a reconciliation issue as clarified in CBIC Circular Nos. 183/15/2022-GST and 193/05/2023-GST, and that Section 17(5) does not bar ITC on banking services received in furtherance of business, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Associated Cashews v The Commissioner of CGST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3037-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 16 October 2026 In Associated Cashews v. The Commissioner of CGST Thiruvananthapuram, 2026-juristway.com-3037-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the appellant, an exporter of cashew kernels, challenged the rejection of refund of ₹19,79,405/- (November 2018: ₹5,26,330/-, December 2018: ₹9,19,176/-, February 2019: ₹5,33,899/-) being IGST originally paid on exports but reported in the wrong GSTR-3B column (Table 3.1(a) instead of 3.1(b)), which prevented automated Customs refund and necessitated a second payment in August 2019 that was subsequently refunded, the Tribunal found that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) had mechanically rejected the appeals without examining the GST returns, relied on Article 265 of the Constitution and the Orissa HC ruling in Rajendra Narayan Mohanty to hold that excess paid tax cannot be retained by the Government, quashed the OIA dated 31.10.2022, and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Oxygen The Digital Shop v The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3036-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 16 October 2026 In Oxygen The Digital Shop v. The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3036-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the appellant, a partnership firm trading in digital gadgets, challenged the denial of ITC of ₹11,22,940/- (CGST ₹5,61,470/- and SGST ₹5,61,470/-) on four invoices for joinery, carpentry and painting services (SAC 995476/995473) procured for interior furnishing of two rented showrooms, the Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 17(5)(c)/(d) restricts ITC on construction, renovation, additions or alterations only to the extent of capitalisation to immovable property, that the CA certificate confirmed the GST component was not capitalised and was accounted separately as ITC with no depreciation claimed thereon, and that the expenditure was classified under Furniture and Fixtures as movable assets, set aside the impugned order and allowed the ITC claim with consequential relief. Load more
