Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Akshaya Building Solution
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
In a writ appeal before the Madras High Court (18 June 2026, W.A. No. 3577 of 2024), Akshaya Building Solution sought rectification of clerical and arithmetical errors in GSTR-1 for early GST periods so that outward supply details and input tax credit would flow correctly to its customers’ ledgers. The Assistant Commissioner resisted on grounds of delay and because the portal did not permit online amendment for those periods. Under Section 39 and Rule 59, the appellate bench held rectification of genuine clerical and arithmetical mistakes could not be denied merely on delay or transient portal limitations when the error frustrated the statutory chain of ITC. Corrected returns or manual rectification as permitted by law had to be allowed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Important for legacy return correction and ITC pass-through in construction supplies. Not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.39 — Furnishing of returns by registered persons.
- CGST Rules R.59 — Rule 59 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Source documents
Similar rulings
See the decision
Chandan Kumar Giri v. State of West Bengal
Chandan Kumar Giri filed writ before the Calcutta High Court (8 September 2026, WPA No. 23778 of 2026) after his GST portal access was blocked, preventing filing of GSTR-1, amid registration-related anomalies following a field inspection and ongoing proceedings against his registration. The Court did not finally adjudicate allegations of bogus registration or tax evasion on writ. Instead it directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation rebutting allegations with documents, and remanded the matter for administrative verification and personal hearing. Portal access was to be restored if, after hearing, the authorities found the assessee bona fide, under Sections 37, 146 and Rule 59. Outcome: remanded for administrative decision—the headnote outcome is see the decision. Procedural roadmap when returns are blocked pending verification. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Umen Chandra Roy v. Union of India
Umen Chandra Roy succeeded in part before the Calcutta High Court (17 August 2026, WPA No. 1360 of 2026) where a rectification application seeking correction of input tax credit in returns was rejected because it was filed beyond a six-month period stated in departmental circulars, even though Section 16(5) of the CGST Act does not prescribe a limitation for availing ITC subject to other conditions. The petitioner invoked Article 226, arguing executive instructions under Section 168 cannot curtailed substantive statutory rights. The Court held rejection based solely on circular delay was unsustainable and remanded the rectification application for consideration on merits, leaving scope to reject only if delay was shown to be unexplained or exceptional on facts. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand under Article 226. Relevant for ITC rectification beyond internal departmental timelines. Not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
State of Karnataka v. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders
The Karnataka High Court Division Bench (10 June 2026, Writ Appeal No. 275 of 2025) allowed the State’s appeal against a Single Judge order that had directed relaxed penalty, interest or limitation for Sudhanva Engineers and Builders, a works contractor, to file or amend GST returns based on a reimbursement clause in its government contract. The contractor argued the employer would reimburse GST consequences, but the revenue contended courts cannot soften statutory fiscal obligations by contract. Under Sections 39, 37, 50, 128 and 168A, contractual reimbursement cannot override mandatory GST statutory liability for returns, interest and penalty; nor can writ courts direct relaxation of statutory limitation or condonation in the absence of valid statutory power. Outcome: in favour of the revenue—the impugned assessee-favourable relief was unsustainable. Not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Tvl. KPK fuel services v. State Tax Officer
Tvl. KPK Fuel Services lost before the Madras High Court (2 June 2026, WP No. 17421 of 2026) challenging late fee levied under Section 47 for failure to furnish the annual return in Form GSTR-9 by the statutory due date. The assessee argued that Section 47 late fee applies only when a return is filed belatedly, not when it is never filed, and therefore no late fee could attach to complete non-filing. The Court rejected that distinction, holding Section 47 covers both belated filing and non-filing scenarios, making imposition of late fee and related penalty valid under Sections 44 and 125 when GSTR-9 is omitted altogether. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Chartered Accountants should treat non-filing of GSTR-9 as equally exposed to Section 47 late fee as delayed filing. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
SRD Groups v. State of Assam
SRD Groups succeeded in the Gauhati High Court (7 September 2026, WP(C) No. 4818 of 2026) where GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to the departmental notice, leaving the petitioner unable to carry on lawful business. The writ sought restoration on undertaking to regularize returns. The Court allowed restoration subject to filing all pending returns within thirty days and confirmed continued liability for tax, interest, penalty and late fee under Sections 29, 30, 39, 44, 73 and 74, aligning limitation for demand with the date of the court order where applicable. Outcome: in favour of the assessee on compliance terms. Typical Gauhati restoration template after return-default cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). Editorial summary only; not legal advice.