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.
10 rulings
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.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Vertex Homes (P.) Ltd
In favour of the assessee
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.
Lux Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax
In favour of the assessee
Lux Industries Ltd. filed interlocutory applications before the GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (INTL.APPL Nos. 1 to 21 (KLK) of 2026, 25 August 2026) seeking early hearing of 21 pending appeals. It cited substantial financial prejudice from denial of refund and prolonged pendency; procedural prerequisites were met and respondents did not oppose priority listing. Under Sections 111 and 112 CGST governing tribunal procedure and appeals, the Tribunal found a compelling case for expedited hearing and allowed the applications. Outcome favoured the assessee on listing only, without deciding substantive tax merits. Large refund-dependent appellants may cite financial prejudice where record and opposition support early board dates. 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.
Vijayan Sahadevan (Deceased) v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST
In favour of the assessee
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (Appeal No. APL/19/TVP/2026, 21 August 2026), set aside demand proceedings against the estate of Vijayan Sahadevan, a deceased sole proprietor whose GSTIN had been cancelled and business discontinued. Section 93(1)(b) CGST requires notice and inquiry directed to the legal representative, with liability limited to the inherited estate. Section 16 on ITC was also in play in the underlying dispute. The Tribunal held that continuing proceedings only against the deceased, without proper steps against the heir, rendered the order-in-appeal and underlying proceedings unsustainable. Outcome favoured the assessee’s legal representative. Departments must re-initiate against successors within Section 93 limits after death of a registrant. 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.
Commissioner CGST & CX v. Power Tech Global (P.) Ltd
See the decision
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (Appeal Nos. APL 62, 74 and 75 (KLK) of 2026, 5 August 2026), considered whether MEIS duty scrips should be excluded from the aggregate value of exempt supplies for common credit reversal under Section 17 CGST and Rule 43. For periods before Notification No. 14 of 2022, which amended Rule 43 to exclude duty credit scrip value, the Tribunal treated the amendment as prospective. ITC on concessional schemes could not be claimed retrospectively as a vested right, and Section 74 featured in related demand context. Outcome is nuanced (“see the decision”) on period-wise treatment. CAs allocating common credit should apply pre- and post-notification rules separately and not assume retroactive exclusion of scrip values. 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.
DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Maata Rani Builders and Developers
In favour of the revenue
In NAPA No. 54 (PB) of 2025 (29 July 2026), the GST Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi confirmed anti-profiteering liability of Maata Rani Builders and Developers for the Anamika Apartment project. Under Section 171 CGST and Rule 133, benefit of additional ITC must reduce prices to recipients. The builder offered some extra construction free of cost but did not reflect the ITC benefit as an actual price reduction on flats. The Tribunal accepted the DGAP’s computation and methodology, holding the developer liable to pass on Rs 99,435 with applicable GST and interest to affected homebuyers. Outcome favoured revenue. Freebies or add-on work do not substitute for the statutory pass-through of ITC benefit; quantification followed DGAP’s accepted approach. 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.
DG Anti Profiteering v. Emaar India Ltd
In favour of the revenue
The GST Appellate Tribunal (NAPA No. 153 (PB) of 2025, 6 July 2026) addressed methodology in DGAP proceedings against Emaar India Ltd. under Section 171 CGST and Rules 126 and 133. For residential projects, the Tribunal validated computing ITC benefit using pre-GST and post-GST credit-to-cost ratios at project level, with area-wise allocation among units. It stressed that the benefit must accrue uniformly to all similarly placed buyers and cannot be restricted to amounts received from individual purchasers. This clarifies how profiteering amounts are spread across a project when rate or ITC changes occur. Outcome favoured revenue on methodological points relevant to quantification. Developers and CAs auditing pass-through should apply consistent project-wide allocation rather than buyer-by-buyer caps. 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.
DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Townpark Buildcon (P.) Ltd
In favour of the revenue
The GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NAPA No. 80 (PB) of 2025, 2 July 2026), heard the Director General of Anti-Profiteering against Townpark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., a real estate developer. Section 171 CGST and Rules 126 and 133 require passing on commensurate benefit of rate or ITC reduction to recipients. The developer did not dispute that additional ITC benefit after GST rate changes was not fully passed to 149 homebuyers who booked before issuance of the occupancy certificate. The DGAP’s project-level computation of the profiteered amount up to the certificate date was upheld. The Tribunal directed refund of the remaining profiteered sum, including GST, to affected buyers under the anti-profiteering framework. Outcome favoured revenue. Developers should align pre-OC pricing with accepted DGAP methodology at project level.
State Tax Officer v. Besto Tradelink Ltd
See the decision
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.
Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax
In favour of the revenue
Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. appealed to the GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Appeal Nos. APL 2 to 7 (PB) of 2026, 4 June 2026), concerning fees paid to Dow Europe GmbH under a procurement support agreement for vendor identification and negotiation. The issue was intermediary versus import of services, place of supply under IGST Sections 2 and 13, and refund under Section 54 CGST read with Rule 89. The Tribunal found Dow Europe acted independently without authority to bind the Indian company; the supply was import of services with place of supply in India, IGST payable on reverse charge, and export-refund style claims rightly rejected. Outcome favoured revenue. Procurement support without binding agency is unlikely to qualify as intermediary services.