Every ruling, in plain sight

Sunders Kitchen (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

Sunders Kitchen (P.) Ltd. approached the Bombay High Court (24 June 2026, Writ Petition No. 503 of 2026) after cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of GSTR-3B, in circumstances where the department did not allege fraud, fake billing or intentional tax evasion. The company undertook to pay all outstanding GST with applicable interest, late fee and penalty and to remain compliant prospectively. Under Sections 29 and 30 read with Rules 22 and 23, the Court directed restoration of registration upon fulfilment of that payment undertaking, with the explicit condition that failure to pay would result in dismissal of the petition. Outcome: in favour of the assessee on payment condition. Useful for food and hospitality companies seeking restoration after pure compliance default. Not legal advice.

S R Enterprise v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

S R Enterprise, a partnership firm, obtained relief from the Gauhati High Court (24 June 2026, WP(C) No. 3345 of 2026) where cancellation rested on a stale show-cause notice issued years earlier, followed by nearly two years of departmental inaction and an eventual cancellation order passed without affording a proper or timely personal hearing. The firm contended that dormant proceedings could not be revived to cancel registration without fresh notice and opportunity. Under Section 29 and Section 169, registration orders must conform to statutory requirements, reasoned process and basic fairness. Cancellation was set aside; the authority may initiate fresh proceedings if grounds still exist, but without excusing the firm’s ongoing obligation to file returns and pay tax. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Addresses delay and dormant SCNs in registration cancellation. Not legal advice.

VRAA and Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

In favour of the revenue

VRAA and Co., a partnership firm, challenged garnishee action before the High Court of Madras (WP No. 22458 of 2026, decided 23 June 2026). Firm tax dues had crystallised without successful challenge; a partner's personal bank account was attached through Form GST DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(c)(i). The firm argued that Section 83 provisional attachment limits applied. The court held partners remain jointly and severally liable for firm dues and garnishee recovery under Section 79 against a partner's account was permissible once liability was final. Section 83 governed provisional attachment in pending proceedings, not this recovery mode. No ground for writ interference arose. The petition was dismissed in favour of the Assistant Commissioner. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.

Samadhan Seva Samiti v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

Samadhan Seva Samiti succeeded before the Patna High Court (23 June 2026, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 945 of 2026) where registration was cancelled on the basis of a notice merely uploaded on the GST common portal without service through other prescribed modes, and the cancellation order itself reflected procedural defects. The State fairly admitted that proper service had not been effected on the society. Under Section 29 and Section 169, valid service of show-cause notice and a real hearing are mandatory before registration is cancelled; a unilateral portal upload without proof of receipt cannot substitute for service. Procedural breach vitiated the cancellation. The order was set aside with liberty to the department to proceed afresh after due compliance with service requirements and opportunity of hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Important for societies on portal-only notices. Not legal advice.

S. Thiruvenkadam v. Commissioner of Municipal Administration

In favour of the revenue

S. Thiruvenkadam, who acquired rights to collect market fees through public auction, challenged GST on that activity before the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 29338 of 2024, decided 23 June 2026. He was not a "local authority" under Article 243W of the Constitution; commercial exploitation of auctioned collection rights was held not exempt under section 11 of the CGST Act. Tender conditions required payment of applicable taxes, and concessions or waivers during the COVID period did not create a right to withhold statutory GST while dues remained unpaid. The writ was dismissed, favouring the revenue. The judgment clarifies limits of municipal-function exemptions when fee collection is privatised. This summary is for CA clients in local fee contracts and is not legal advice.

Renaatus Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate General of gst Intelligence, Chennai

In favour of the revenue

Renaatus Projects (P.) Ltd. filed W.A. No. 190 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; decision 23 June 2026. A GST-registered contractor in Tamil Nadu executed construction of a Supreme Court building at Port Louis, Mauritius, funded under a Government of India grant. DGGI issued a show-cause notice alleging taxable supply linked to India through procurement and financial consolidation. The company sought writ quashing as without jurisdiction. The division bench held the challenge premature: whether IGST Sections 7 and 12 treat the arrangement as supply in India requires factual examination, not a patent jurisdictional defect. Writ appeal dismissed; outcome for revenue. CGST definitions in Section 2 and Section 7 were also referenced. Not legal advice. Offshore construction under foreign grants may still face IGST scrutiny if Indian nexus is pleaded; respondents may contest facts at adjudication.

Vishal @ Vishal Dadaso Tamkhade v. Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence

In favour of the assessee

Vishal @ Vishal Dadaso Tamkhade and others filed Criminal Petition Nos. 8230–8234 and 8236 of 2026 before the Karnataka High Court; order 22 June 2026. DGGI investigated large-scale GST evasion under Sections 132 and 69. Petitioners sought anticipatory bail to approach a court in another state. The court granted limited interim protection for ten days on personal bond, sureties, passport surrender and cooperation with investigation, finding no immediate flight risk. Outcome: partial relief for assessees. Shows conditional interim shield during multi-state investigations. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Ten-day protection allows forum shopping for bail while preserving investigative oversight through passport and bond conditions. Full anticipatory bail was not granted; petitioners must return if protection expires without regular bail.

Aditya Security Force v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (AUDIT 2)

In favour of the assessee

Aditya Security Force challenged ex parte GST orders before the Karnataka High Court (Writ Petition No. 105019 of 2026, 22 June 2026), raising arguable issues on reverse charge liability and demand exceeding the show cause notice under Sections 73 and 107 CGST. In the peculiar facts, including ex parte adjudication, the Court allowed a belated statutory appeal to be filed for merits adjudication rather than deciding tax issues in writ. Outcome favoured the assessee procedurally with remand to the appellate forum. Assessees with credible limitation and merit arguments may obtain liberty to appeal after ex parte orders, subject to court discretion. 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.

24 HRS Productions v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise

M/s. 24 HRS Productions filed W.P. No. 11123 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; the court disposed of the matter on 24 March 2026 (case metadata records 22 June 2026). The assessee challenged an ex parte order dated 29 April 2024 under section 73 following Show Cause Notice No. 62/2023 after failing to file a reply or attend personal hearing. Statutory appeal limitation had long expired. By consent, the Court remanded for de novo adjudication on merits if the assessee pre-deposits fifty per cent of disputed tax within thirty days, files a substantive reply treating the impugned order as addendum to the SCN, and meets other conditions; bank attachment would vacate on compliance. Section 16 ITC eligibility may be re-examined on merits. Not legal advice.

Ravi Kunchepu v. State Tax Officer (FAC)

See the decision

Ravi Kunchepu approached the Telangana High Court (WP 18708 of 2026, 18 June 2026) by writ against an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, contending he became aware of it only when it appeared under “additional notices” on the GST portal. The issue was whether writ jurisdiction should substitute for the statutory appellate route. The court declined to entertain the writ where an appeal under Section 107 remained available, treating the dispute as one fit for the appellate hierarchy rather than exceptional writ interference. Petitioner was granted liberty to file the statutory appeal, with direction that the appellate authority consider condonation of delay, the mandatory pre-deposit, and decide on merits if sufficient cause was established. This preserves the primacy of Section 107 while accommodating portal-based service concerns through the condonation mechanism rather than bypassing appeal.

Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Akshaya Building Solution

In favour of the assessee

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.

Smt. Sunita Rai v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Smt. Sunita Rai, engaged in supplying vehicles on hire, challenged before the Gauhati High Court (17 June 2026, WP (C) No. 3165 of 2026) cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns based on a show-cause notice that did not specify the period of default and a cancellation order that recorded no specific reasons linking facts to Section 29. The petitioner argued that she could not effectively respond without knowing which tax periods were in default. Under Section 29 and Rule 22, adverse civil consequences require a speaking order and adequate notice so the assessee can meet the case against it. The Court quashed the cancellation and remanded the matter to the proper officer for fresh consideration after issuing a compliant notice and passing a reasoned order. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand. Emphasizes reasoned orders in registration cancellation. Not legal advice.

Sai Cashew Processors v. Deputy State Tax Officer -1

In favour of the assessee

Sai Cashew Processors challenged combined late fee and penalty before the High Court of Madras (WP Nos. 21603, 21609 and 21622 of 2026, decided 17 June 2026) for delayed filing of GST returns. Revenue imposed statutory late fee under Section 47 and an additional general penalty under Section 125 for the identical default. The court held that once a specific late fee is prescribed and levied for belated returns, a general penalty for the same default is unwarranted and amounts to impermissible double punishment under the scheme of the Act. Penalty orders were set aside while late fee collections remained intact. The decision favoured the assessee and aligns with Madras High Court jurisprudence on the interaction of Sections 47 and 125 for return delays.

MS Sarada Refrigeration and Air Condition v. State of Assam

MS Sarada Refrigeration and Air Condition (WP(C) No. 2345 of 2026) prevailed before the Gauhati High Court on 17 June 2026. The proper officer had passed an order in original under Section 73(9) after issuing only a summary show cause notice in Form DRC-01, without a substantive notice under Section 73(1) detailing cause of action. Following Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd., the court quashed the order dated 8 March 2024 and directed issuance of a proper Section 73(1) notice dating back to the summary notice, with limitation under Section 73(10) excluded for the interim period. Outcome favoured the assessee. Rule 142 summaries cannot replace full show cause notices. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-17, the High Court recorded as recorded in the order in the writ petition. 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.

Manoj Ramkishan Agrawal v. Union of India

In favour of the revenue

Partners of a trading firm challenged penalty under Section 122 before the High Court of Gujarat (R/Special Civil Application No. 7965 of 2026, decided 17 June 2026). Revenue found complicity in generating fake invoices and e-way bills without actual supply, with admissions and forensic evidence linking the petitioners to hawala operations and cash returns. Section 90 on liability of partners was also relevant. The court held that knowledge and consent of the partners was established on the record, justifying penalty under Section 122 against persons who caused the violation. No breach of natural justice was demonstrated in the adjudication. Writ interference was declined and the outcome favoured the Union of India. The decision underscores personal penalty exposure of partners in bogus-invoice and circular-trading schemes detected by intelligence authorities.

Jayashree Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

In favour of the revenue

Jayashree Enterprises filed WP No. 19835 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; judgment 17 June 2026. The department found ineligible input tax credit availed and utilised where declared ITC in GSTR-3B exceeded credits appearing in GSTR-2A. It imposed interest at twenty-four per cent from the date of utilisation until reversal, under the specific provision read with Rule 88B, rather than general Section 50 interest. The assessee argued cash payment later avoided utilisation-based interest. The court upheld the order: utilisation through the electronic credit ledger triggers the enhanced rate regardless of subsequent cash adjustment. Outcome: in favour of revenue. Section 50 contrasted with the special rule for ineligible credit. Summary for ITC reconciliation risk; not legal advice. Taxpayers should reverse ineligible ITC promptly to limit the utilisation-period interest exposure highlighted in this ruling.

Sultan Mahmood Khan v. Commercial Tax Officer

Sultan Mahmood Khan, proprietor of M/s I N Enterprises, filed a writ before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (WP No. 11328 of 2026, decided 16 June 2026) against provisional attachment of his ICICI bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act in Form GST DRC-22 dated 2 May 2024. The attachment had continued beyond the one-year limit prescribed in Section 83(2). Following the Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile, the court held the order lapsed by operation of law; revenue cannot renew or reissue provisional attachment for the same cause after lapse. Taxpayers need not routinely approach High Courts to enforce the statutory cap when revenue fails to lift attachment. The petition was allowed; the petitioner could operate the account unless other proceedings applied.

Siri Constructions v. Assistant Commissionerst

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Siri Constructions (Andhra Pradesh High Court, WP 26667 of 2025, 16 June 2026) challenged summary assessment in Form GST DRC-07 where department admitted absence of assessing officer signature. Under Section 160 CGST Act, authentication is essential; unsigned summaries cannot create enforceable demand even if visible on portal dashboards. Curative provisions cannot ratify void assessment. Court set aside impugned DRC-07 solely for signature defect without expressing views on substantive tax issues, preserving open questions for fresh adjudication. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded for compliant order. Reinforces procedural checklist before conceding demand or filing appeal. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. Material facts and holdings are drawn from the reported judgment.

Pristine Steels v. Superintendent of Central Tax

In favour of the assessee

The Karnataka High Court (16 June 2026, Writ Petition No. 17566 of 2026) set aside cancellation of Pristine Steels’ registration where the show-cause notice was vague, lacked material particulars linking the assessee to alleged non-compliance, and the proper officer ignored the petitioner’s detailed reply filed within time. The writ raised whether cancellation under Section 29 could proceed when the taxpayer had not been told precisely what facts were disputed. Rule 22 requires detailed grounds in Form GST REG-17 and a meaningful opportunity to respond before registration is cancelled. Where the authority neither engaged with the reply nor recorded reasons for rejecting it, cancellation was unsustainable. The SCN and cancellation order were quashed with liberty for fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Reinforces that registration cancellation must be evidence-based and responsive to representations. Editorial summary for CAs; not legal advice.

Marella Siva Narayana v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

In favour of the assessee

Marella Siva Narayana (Andhra Pradesh High Court, WP 13473 of 2026, 16 June 2026) disputed state GST assessment for specified tax periods where Form GST DRC-07 lacked assessing officer signature, an fact admitted by revenue. Signature requirement under Section 160 read with Rule 26 is mandatory for valid assessment; neither curative statutes nor electronic service under portal workflows salvage unsigned orders because they never validly came into existence. Petitioner approached court without undue delay once defect discovered. Impugned order set aside; assessing officer may pass fresh signed assessment after show cause and hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Part of consistent AP High Court jurisprudence protecting taxpayers from procedurally infirm DRC-07 summaries. Editorial summary only. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.