State Tax Officer v. Besto Tradelink Ltd
See the decision
The ruling in brief
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1451 of 2024, 30 June 2026), rejected the State Tax Department’s attempt to rank as a secured creditor for GST dues in CIRP against Besto Tradelink Ltd. Section 82 CGST creates a statutory charge but does not override the insolvency priority under the IBC. The department had not objected during the resolution process, and the approved resolution plan had been fully implemented. Challenging unsecured treatment thereafter lacked merit. Outcome turned on insolvency law interaction with GST recovery. Tax authorities in CIRP should assert claims timely; statutory charge alone does not equate to secured status in liquidation or resolution. 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.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India
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.
In favour of the revenue
Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India
Siemens Healthcare (P) Ltd. approached the High Court of Delhi (W.P. (C) No. 16562 of 2024, decided 12 August 2026) to restrain transfer of its audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing within the same commissionerate. The taxpayer cited lack of statutory authority and disruption of audit timelines under Section 65 of the CGST Act. The court treated the transfer as an internal administrative reallocation, not barred by statute, particularly where it followed repeated non-compliance by the petitioner in responding to audit requisitions. Judicial interference at the writ stage was unwarranted; the petitioner could raise jurisdictional and procedural objections before the adjudicating authority in the consequential proceedings. The petition was dismissed in favour of the revenue. Section 5 empowers reallocation of work among officers without invalidating subsequent enforcement.
In favour of the revenue
Nehkhohao Haokip v. Union of India
Nehkhohao Haokip and others petitioned the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 3871 of 2026, 27 July 2026) against repatriation from In-Charge Transfer (ICT) postings in the CBIC. The petitioners had been promoted as Executive Assistants and transferred on ICT after the 2015 Recruitment Rules, which provided separate cadres and no provision for absorption. CBIC policy restricted ICT except in limited cases. The issue was whether orders treating ICT as loan postings and directing repatriation were valid. The court upheld the department's position that ICT postings were impermissible under the rules and policy framework. No infirmity was found in the repatriation orders. The writ was dismissed in favour of the Union of India. This summary is for CA reference on service matters touching GST administration, not legal advice.
See the decision
v. Maruti Developers
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.
In favour of the assessee
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Vertex Homes (P.) Ltd
The GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NAPA No. 87 (PB) of 2025, 2 September 2026), reviewed whether Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd. profiteered by retaining post-GST ITC benefit on a construction project. A homebuyer had complained; the developer evidenced significant escalation in input costs after GST, particularly in ready-mix concrete, sand and bricks. The Tribunal held the DGAP methodology that accounted for post-GST input cost increases was legally sound and that those cost rises had offset the additional ITC, so the developer did not breach Section 171 CGST or Rules 126 and 129. The DGAP report was accepted. Outcome favoured the assessee developer. Anti-profiteering analysis is net of eligible cost escalation, not ITC gain alone. 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.