Every ruling, in plain sight
Look up GST High Court, GSTAT, and advance-ruling decisions by topic — with a complete summary for each matter and the source judgment PDF when you need the full text.
278 rulings
Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
In favour of the revenue
The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 10213 of 2025, judgment dated 29 September 2026) declined to interfere at the show-cause stage in proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Rules 101 and 142. Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd., a medicine distributor, challenged a show cause notice and the appropriation of amounts deposited during audit, alleging coercion, limitation errors, incorrect computation, and lack of jurisdiction. The bench held that statutory adjudication had already commenced and the notice had not finally determined tax liability. Objections—including whether payment was voluntary—were matters for the adjudicating authority after reply and hearing. Premature writ relief was unwarranted. The outcome favoured the revenue; the assessee was left to pursue its defences in the pending adjudication. This summary is for information only and is not legal advice.
Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
In favour of the revenue
LICHFL Care Homes Ltd. sought writ relief before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 13665 of 2026, 28 September 2026) against anti-profiteering findings on a residential project. Section 171 CGST requires passing ITC or rate benefit to buyers. On remand, the DGAP had quantified benefit using purchase value against project cost with area-wise distribution, conforming to remand directions and differing from an earlier rejected method. The High Court (Jain and Kshetarpal JJ) found no jurisdictional error in the GSTAT order upholding that report and declined interference. Outcome favoured revenue. Remanded anti-profiteering proceedings must follow directed methodology; courts defer to GSTAT when remand terms are met. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
Jaiwanti v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Jaiwanti, as legal representative, challenged show cause and penalty proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund claims of a deceased person. The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 7254 of 2025, 25 September 2026) upheld the department’s action under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which permits post-death determination of tax, interest, and penalty to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Investigation and recovery against legal heirs were jurisdictionally valid; Article 14 and related provisions did not assist the petitioner. Outcome favoured the revenue. This contrasts with cases where notices are issued only in the deceased’s name without proper representation procedure. For estate planning and GST compliance, Section 93 mechanics are central. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-25, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P.(C) NO.7254 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.93, CGST S.73, CGST S.74. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Joydeb Karmakar challenged before the Calcutta High Court (24 September 2026, WPA No. 10299 of 2026) the cancellation of his GST registration for not updating bank details after separating from a joint account, with no allegation of fraud or evasion. The department had treated the stale bank mapping as grounds for cancellation under Section 29 rather than as a correctable registration defect. The issue was whether such an administrative lapse warranted cancellation without a curative opportunity and without examining whether the taxpayer continued to conduct genuine business. The Court treated the defect as rectifiable under Rules 10A and 21 read with Sections 29 and 30, emphasizing that cancellation is a drastic remedy where particulars can be updated on the portal. Cancellation was quashed subject to the assessee proving bona fides, filing pending returns and clearing dues for restoration. Outcome: assessee-favourable with remand and compliance conditions. One opportunity to correct particulars was held warranted where misconduct was not alleged. Editorial summary; not legal advice.
Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Arup Datta (Calcutta High Court, WPA 17892 of 2026, 24 September 2026, Sumita Das De, J.) challenged demand of tax, interest and penalty under Sections 73 and 75 where show cause notice and ex parte adjudication order were uploaded on GST portal without direct intimation. Petitioner filed reply yet received no personal hearing before order-in-original, violating audi alteram partem embedded in Section 75(4) scheme and fair service expectations under Section 169 context. Court quashed impugned adjudication and directed reconsideration after effective hearing with communicated schedule. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. West Bengal portal-service cases increasingly scrutinize ‘additional notices’ tabs and silent ex parte orders. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Rohit Vij (W.P.(C) No. 13848 of 2021) obtained setting aside and remand from the High Court of Delhi on 22 September 2026. An adverse Form DRC-07 was passed without personal hearing despite Section 75 and Rule 142 requiring hearing on request or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated. The order was unsustainable. The adjudicating authority must pass a fresh decision after effective personal hearing. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Delhi benches consistently police hearing compliance in DRC proceedings. Registered persons should formally request hearings and preserve proof when SCN signals confirmation of demand. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-22, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in W.P.(C) NO. 13848 OF 2021. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, CGST Rules R.142. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
Saptagiri Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
In favour of the assessee
Saptagiri Constructions, supplying works contract services to government departments, faced a single composite summary assessment for multiple years. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 26644 of 2026, 21 September 2026) under Section 75 set aside the order as impermissible clubbing and allowed fresh year-wise proceedings with consequential relief revoked. Outcome favoured the assessee. Mirrors sibling Andhra Pradesh judgments on composite orders in works-contract GST assessments. Government vendors should expect separate SCNs if department reopens past periods. Period-specific limitation and hearing apply to each re-initiated year. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-21, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 26644 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
H.K. Impex v. Commissioner of DGST
In favour of the assessee
H.K. Impex filed W.P.(C) No. 13924 of 2026 before the Delhi High Court (21 September 2026) when its appeal was rejected as time-barred based on upload of the demand order on the GST Common Portal alone. Under Sections 107 and 169 CGST, mere portal upload without separate service or acknowledgement does not start the appeal limitation clock. The Court allowed filing within four weeks. Outcome favoured the assessee. Taxpayers should document how orders were received; departments should follow formal service norms to fix limitation. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
v. Maruti Developers
See the decision
In NAPA No. 156 (PB.) of 2025 (18 September 2026), the GST Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi dealt with Maruti Developers’ residential project where additional post-GST ITC benefit was not passed to homebuyers. Under Section 171 CGST and Rules 126 and 133, the DGAP recomputed profiteering after properly excluding reversed unutilised ITC from the benefit calculation. The Tribunal accepted that methodology and the revised profiteered amount of about Rs 2.62 lakh, directing the developer to pass it on with 18% interest to eligible buyers. Outcome aligns with revenue on quantification and pass-through obligation. The case illustrates that unutilised ITC reversals must be factored into anti-profiteering arithmetic; editorial summary for CAs, not advice on specific projects. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
Puneet Batra v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Advocate Puneet Batra approached the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 11021/2025, 18 September 2026) after the GST department searched a law firm's premises under Section 67 CGST, seizing client documents and a CPU from his cabin. He invoked advocate–client privilege and argued that the search and seizure were unlawful. The Division Bench held that privilege protects confidential communications belonging to the client, not the physical location of records, and that an advocate's cabin within authorized premises forms part of the premises covered by the search warrant. Statutory authorization justified inquiry where prima facie material existed regarding the advocate's conduct in the GST context. Privilege therefore did not bar the search as pleaded. The court indicated that the writ petition was to be dismissed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. For practitioners, the decision underscores that privilege is not a blanket shield against lawful search of office premises when statutory authorization and credible material support departmental action, though client-owned confidential communications retain protected status in principle.
Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the revenue
Krishna Industries filed a writ before the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 4897 of 2025, 18 September 2026) challenging central GST action while state authorities were proceeding under Section 73. The assessee had claimed input tax credit on invoices from a supplier; state and central authorities invoked different provisions—Section 73 at the state level and Section 74 at the central level—based on distinct intelligence regarding alleged bogus transactions. The assessee argued that Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act barred parallel proceedings. The court held that commonality of assessee, period, or ITC amount was insufficient to treat the actions as overlapping when the assessee held different GSTINs and the subject matter and investigative material differed. Central proceedings were not impermissible. The writ was dismissed in favour of the revenue.
Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union Srinagar Dood Ganga v. Union Territory of J And K
In favour of the assessee
Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union Srinagar Dood Ganga filed WP(C) No. 1016 of 2023 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; order 18 September 2026. The union operated taxi stands on public land under temporary allotment and paid rent to the administration. Respondents demanded GST on rental periods including years before GST came into force on 8 July 2017. The court held tax could not be levied retrospectively for pre-implementation rent; liability attached only from 8 July 2017 onward under Sections 1 and 9 read with transitional Section 174. Outcome: in favour of the assessee for the pre-GST period. Relevant for government lease and land-allotment cases. Editorial summary; not legal advice. Dues for post-July 2017 rent remain payable with GST where applicable, separating valid current liability from invalid back demands.
Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Jain Cement Udyog filed W.P.(C) No. 13622 of 2026 before the Delhi High Court, decided 17 September 2026, concerning input tax credit denied where supplier registrations were cancelled before invoice dates and suppliers had not paid tax. The assessee also challenged constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), relying on Rule 37A verification norms. The Court noted the Supreme Court upheld section 16(2)(c), requiring recipients to establish supplier tax deposit, and rejected the constitutional challenge. On maintainability, writ jurisdiction was declined and the assessee was relegated to statutory appeal to contest fact-specific eligibility. Outcome favoured the revenue on validity and procedure. Chartered accountants should strengthen pre-availment supplier due diligence and maintain contemporaneous audit trails for invoices. Not legal advice.
GSR Handlooms v. Assistant Commissioner ST
In favour of the assessee
GSR Handlooms, a registered dealer in handloom sarees, challenged a single composite summary assessment order covering multiple tax periods before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 26316 of 2026, 17 September 2026). Under Section 73 of the CGST Act, the Division Bench held that a composite assessment across years is unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the department may initiate separate proceedings for each assessment year. Judgment follows the Andhra Pradesh line on period-specific adjudication in demand matters. Result: in favour of the assessee. For practitioners reviewing DRC-07 orders spanning several FYs, this decision is a further data point within that jurisdiction. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-17, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 26316 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
Venspra Impex v. Deputy Commissioner ST
In favour of the assessee
Venspra Impex filed Writ Petition No. 26359 of 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 16 September 2026, against a single composite assessment order under section 74 of the CGST Act covering multiple tax periods in one Form GST DRC-07. Following consistent doctrine of the bench, the Court ruled that each tax period requires distinct notice and adjudication; consolidated assessment is unsustainable and undermines appellate remedies and period-wise limitation analysis. The impugned consolidated order was set aside with liberty to the department to issue separate notices and pass separate orders for each period if so advised. The decision favoured the assessee and aligns with other Andhra Pradesh judgments on multi-period demands. This summary is for professional awareness only and is not legal advice.
RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
RPP Infra Projects Ltd. challenged DGGI Kanpur's investigation before the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) Nos. 10852, 10853, 10861 of 2025, decided 16 September 2026). The infrastructure company held GST registrations in multiple States, administratively assigned to respective state commissionerates, but DGGI issued a common show cause notice alleging cross-State invoice chains and bogus credits. The assessee objected that only state-assigned officers could act on its registrations. The court reasoned under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 168 of the CGST Act that officers of the Directorate General possess all-India powers irrespective of tax administrative allocation. Investigation and notice by DGGI were valid. The jurisdictional challenge failed and the writ was dismissed in favour of the Union of India. Multi-state registrants cannot limit DGGI inquiry by administrative assignment alone.
Union of India v. ABB Global Industries and Services (P.) Ltd
In favour of the assessee
The Union of India appealed before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Appeal No. 1524 of 2026, decided 15 September 2026) against an order allowing ABB Global Industries and Services (P) Ltd. refund of tax paid on export of services. Refund had been rejected under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, including the erstwhile Rule 96(10) restriction, which was omitted without saving or sunset provision. The Division Bench affirmed that ongoing restriction after omission could not be maintained, following Supreme Court precedent that proceedings under an omitted rule cannot continue without express savings language. The appeal failed; outcome favoured the assessee on IGST and CGST Sections 54 and Rule 96 framework for export refunds. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
Lazard Infrastructure LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
In favour of the assessee
Lazard Infrastructure LLP filed a writ before the Karnataka High Court (WP 28678/2026, 15 September 2026) after its supplier LLP's input tax credit was blocked on the GST portal without prior intimation or pre-decisional hearing, based largely on advisory communication pending verification. The block disrupted downstream credit availability though no formal notice under Rule 86A preceded the restriction. Rule 86A and Section 169 were considered. The court found mechanical blocking unjustified where no show cause or hearing preceded the restriction. ITC was directed to be unblocked forthwith; fresh action could proceed only after due notice and opportunity of hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Recipient taxpayers affected by supplier-side blocks gain support for immediate unblock orders when departments act on unverified alerts without Rule 86A compliance, paralleling GVS Engineering on procedural invalidity.
Goutam Engineering Concern v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
In favour of the assessee
Goutam Engineering Concern filed WPA No. 5150 of 2022 before the Calcutta High Court; judgment 14 September 2026. It performed electrical line repair and maintenance for West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., completing the work in 2015 before GST commenced. Billing and approval occurred in 2019; WBSEDCL withheld payment insisting on GST registration and tax invoices. The issue was the date of supply and whether completed pre-GST services could be taxed under CGST. The court held subsequent billing could not pull finished 2015 services into GST; withholding was wrongful. Payment was directed with interest, subject to deduction of any tax under the pre-GST regime. Outcome: assessee favoured. Sections 9 and 142 cited. Not legal advice. Government contractors should document completion dates and pre-GST invoices to resist post-facto GST demands on old works.
Aakash Gupta v. Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal
In favour of the assessee
Multiple writ petitioners including Aakash Gupta approached the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) Nos. 12808 et seq., 14 September 2026) because GSTAT insisted on pre-deposit for appeals arising from penalty-only show cause notices issued before the amended pre-deposit requirement. Sections 107 and 112 CGST govern first and second appeals; the right of appeal vests when the SCN is issued. The Court held the new pre-deposit condition could not apply retrospectively to penalty-only cases from pre-amendment SCNs, and directed GSTAT to entertain those appeals without pre-deposit. Outcome favoured assessees. Penalty appeals tied to older SCNs should be filed under the law as it stood when the notice was issued. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.