Shakti Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Shakti Enterprises filed Writ Petition No. 1913 of 2026 (T-RES) before the Karnataka High Court; judgment 10 August 2026. On transition to GST the petitioner carried forward valid CENVAT credit into its electronic credit ledger under Section 140 and later debited that ledger to satisfy the pre-deposit required to pursue an appeal under Section 107. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal, treating the pre-deposit as invalid because it was not paid in cash, relying on CBIC administrative instructions. The High Court held the statute does not restrict pre-deposit to cash when credit in the Section 49 ledger is lawfully available; circulars cannot override statutory credit rights or Rule 142 procedures. The Tribunal’s ground of rejection was quashed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. 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.140 — Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
- CGST S.49 — Section 49 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
- CGST S.107 — Appeals to the Appellate Authority.
- CGST Rules R.142 — Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
NCC Ltd. v. Union Territory of J & K
NCC Ltd., engaged in construction, filed WP(C) No. 1935 of 2026 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, decided on 12 August 2026. The Additional Commissioner had blocked the company’s electronic credit ledger under CGST Rule 86A, linked to Section 49, without stating reasons or offering a prior hearing. The revenue argued Rule 86A does not mandate a show-cause. The court disagreed: blocking input tax credit affects substantive rights and carries serious civil consequences, so principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem apply even when the rule is silent on procedure. The order was held arbitrary and set aside. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. For chartered accountants reviewing ITC blocks, the decision underscores that administrative power under Rule 86A must be exercised fairly and transparently. This summary is for professional awareness and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Vasanta Resorts and Spa (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
Vasanta Resorts and Spa (P.) Ltd. filed CWP No. 12966 of 2026 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court; order 31 July 2026. The dispute concerned input tax credit blocked or denied following retrospective amendment to Section 17(5)(d), which restricts credit on construction of immovable property. The assessee filed a belated appeal; the Appellate Authority dismissed it as time-barred and declined condonation beyond the statutory limit in Section 107. The High Court set aside the dismissal on delay grounds alone and remanded the appeal for adjudication on merits of the Section 17(5)(d) challenge. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. CAs should separate limitation issues from substantive ITC blocking under Section 17. Not legal advice. Merits will now include whether hospitality construction qualifies for any exception under the amended Section 17(5)(d) language.
In favour of the assessee
Shiv Shakti Trading Co. v. State of Haryana
Shiv Shakti Trading Co. and allied petitioners filed consolidated writs before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 22 July 2026. The revenue had initiated proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST, PGST and HGST Acts to recover amounts said to represent input tax or credit wrongly availed under the erstwhile Haryana VAT Act before GST. The petitioners contended that pre-GST VAT credits and related disputes fall outside the GST determination and recovery provisions. The court agreed: Sections 73 and 74 address GST-era liabilities, not legacy VAT credits governed by transition rules including Section 140. Proceedings lacked jurisdiction and could not be sustained. Outcome across the batch of petitions: in favour of the assessees. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Santu Das v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & C. EX, Chandannagore Division
Santu Das filed proceedings before the Calcutta High Court (decision 1 July 2026) against the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Chandannagore Division. Input tax credit for 2018–19 was denied on the sole ground that returns were filed after the original deadline in Section 16(4). Parliament later amended the CGST Act to insert Section 16(5), retrospectively relaxing the time limit so that ITC could be taken where returns were filed by 30 November 2021. The petitioner’s returns met that extended cut-off. The court held the department could not ignore the amendment and reject credit purely for delay. The impugned order was set aside; outcome in favour of the assessee. Sections 16, 73 and Rule 142 were engaged. This summary is for professional reference only and is not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India
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.