Every ruling, in plain sight

AMR Vision v. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax

In favour of the assessee

AMR Vision (Andhra Pradesh High Court, WP 10393 of 2025, 16 June 2026, R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.) challenged a demand crystallized in Form GST DRC-07 for lacking the Assessing Officer’s signature. Both petitioner and State conceded the omission. Under Section 160 of the CGST Act and Rule 26 of the CGST Rules, assessment orders require proper authentication; unsigned orders are void ab initio for assessment purposes. Section 169 service mechanics cannot cure absent signature because defect goes to existence of valid order, not merely mode of communication. Delay in filing writ was irrelevant. Impugned assessment set aside with liberty for fresh proceeding after notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Andhra Pradesh line of authority treats unsigned DRC-07 as recurring procedural vulnerability auditors should verify. Not legal advice.

Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner STII

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla (Andhra Pradesh High Court, WP 7693 of 2026, 15 June 2026) received GST assessment served electronically without assessing officer signature on DRC-07. Applying precedent on Section 160 and Section 169, court found patent irregularity invalidating order irrespective of portal delivery. Writ entertained subject to twenty per cent pre-deposit of disputed demand balancing revenue safeguard. Impugned assessment quashed; Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST-II) directed to adjudicate afresh after notice and hearing, issuing duly signed order. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Committees and associations registered under GST should verify signature and DIN on every DRC-07 before paying or appealing. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. Material facts and holdings are drawn from the reported judgment.

Mahadevappa v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax

In favour of the revenue

Mahadevappa’s writ before the Karnataka High Court (15 June 2026, Writ Petition No. 102663 of 2026) arose from suspension and cancellation of GST registration at premises owned by his wife, following her complaint over use of a registered general power of attorney. The petitioner sought Article 226 relief to restore registration and bypass departmental and appellate proceedings. The Court held that a domestic dispute over authority to operate from the premises did not displace the statutory registration and appeal mechanism under Sections 29, 30 and 75 of the CGST Act. Where Section 107 provides an effective appellate remedy against cancellation, high courts ordinarily refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction at the threshold unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not made out on the facts pleaded. Writ jurisdiction was therefore declined. Outcome: in favour of the revenue—the petitioner must pursue remedies under the CGST Act including appeal and revocation pathways. Summary for practitioners on alternate remedy and writ maintainability; not legal advice.

GSN Granites v. Assistant Commissioner ST

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

GSN Granites (Andhra Pradesh High Court, WP 14368 of 2026, 15 June 2026) impugned assessment communicated only via GST portal where Form GST DRC-07 bore no assessing officer signature. Following binding precedent under Section 160 and Rule 26, unsigned orders cannot operate as valid assessments; curative provisions in Sections 160 and 169 do not validate them retrospectively. Writ jurisdiction was exercised conditional on deposit of twenty per cent of disputed tax, balancing revenue protection with procedural rectification. Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to Assistant Commissioner (ST) for fresh adjudication after personal hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Practitioners should secure signed copies and not rely solely on portal thumbnails. Informational summary for Chartered Universe. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.

B.K. Steels v. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

B.K. Steels (Telangana High Court, WP 17499 of 2026, 15 June 2026) returned after earlier writ remand directing adjudication on original show cause under Sections 74 and 75 following personal-hearing violation. Despite directions, Assessing Officer issued second show cause and fresh order for same year, effectively restarting proceedings. Court held second notice impermissible and beyond remand scope; authority must adjudicate first show cause only after granting compliant hearing and considering reply. Impugned order set aside with consequential directions preserving prior High Court mandate. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Important for litigation strategy after partial writ wins—department must adhere strictly to remand terms. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.

Aman Singh v. Director General Goods and Service Tax Intelligence

In favour of the assessee

Aman Singh applied for regular bail (MCRC 3019 of 2026, Chhattisgarh High Court, 15 June 2026) in a DG GST Intelligence investigation alleging creation and operation of a firm to pass fraudulent input tax credit using bogus suppliers and invoices, grounded in statements, banking trails and operational links under Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act (procedure under BNSS Section 483). Prosecution argued custodial interrogation remained necessary; defence highlighted absence of unimpeachable proof identifying applicant as proprietor and substantial progress of investigation without further detention. The court balanced coercive needs against prolonged incarceration where evidence was largely documentary and already secured. Extended custody and custodial interrogation were not warranted; regular bail granted subject to conditions including cooperation. Outcome: in favour of the assessee/applicant. Bail jurisprudence in GST fraud matters turns on tampering risk, flight, and necessity of custody—not maximum sentence alone. Not legal advice.

Tvl. Fathima Traders v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Tvl. Fathima Traders filed WP Nos. 22419, 22420 and 22422 of 2023 before the Madras High Court; ruling 12 June 2026. Input tax credit was denied because a supplier’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect, even though the supplier was active and registered when most supplies occurred and transactions largely predated the cancellation order. The court held that retrospective cancellation alone, without examining whether supplies were genuine and supported under Rule 36, cannot justify wholesale ITC rejection. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority for reconsideration after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. Sections 16 and 29 were engaged. Summary for supply-chain due diligence; not legal advice. The remand ensures verification of invoices, tax payments and business nexus rather than a mechanical denial tied only to supplier registration status.

Smt. Jumoni Boruah Phukan v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

Smt. Jumoni Boruah Phukan filed writ in the Gauhati High Court (12 June 2026, WP(C) No. 3071 of 2026) after cancellation of her GST registration for six months’ continuous non-filing of returns; she cited financial hardship while expressing readiness to comply with the proviso to Rule 22(4) by filing all pending returns and clearing dues. The issue was whether cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) should permanently exclude a bona fide taxpayer willing to cure the default. Applying Sections 30, 44, 73 and Rule 22, the Court granted restoration subject to compliance, directed that fresh limitation periods run from the order, and confirmed full liability for tax, interest, penalty and late fee. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Aligns with Gauhati line on curing return defaults after Section 29(2)(c) cancellation. Not legal advice.

KPR Enterprises v. State Tax Officer

In favour of the revenue

KPR Enterprises, engaged in rock boulder sales, challenged extended limitation and procedure before the High Court of Madras (W.P. Nos. 35453, 35458 and 35463 of 2024, 12 June 2026). Revenue compared declared turnover with high seigniorage fee payments and estimated escaped turnover using the National Standard Method, justifying notice under Section 74 read with Section 75. The court found prima facie material supported invocation of fraud/suppression limitation and dismissed the writ as meritless. Outcome favoured the revenue. The case illustrates how non-GST records (mining/seigniorage data) may underpin GST demand in quarrying businesses. Appeal under Section 107 remains the appropriate further forum for detailed challenge. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-12, High Court of Madras recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P. NOS. 35453, 35458 AND 35463 OF 2024. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, CGST S.75. 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.

Flex Enterprises v. Superintendent of Central Tax

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

In Flex Enterprises v. Superintendent of Central Tax, the Karnataka High Court (12 June 2026, Writ Petition Nos. 13708 and 13791 of 2026) examined bulk cancellation of registrations based on show-cause notices under Rule 22(1) tied to inspection reports that were blank or defective. The issue was whether the precondition for issuing a valid SCN under Section 29 and Rules 21A and 22 was met. The Court found it was not: without credible inspection material, the SCN and consequent cancellation and suspension could not stand. Orders were quashed and proceedings restored to the SCN stage so petitioners could respond with documents. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand. The decision underscores that registration cancellation must rest on proper fact-finding, not pro forma notices. Summary for Chartered Accountants; not legal advice.

Debojit Deb v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

Debojit Deb (Gauhati High Court, WP(C) 1653 of 2026, 12 June 2026, Kardak Ete, J.) executed government works contracts claiming service tax exemption under applicable notification while department raised demand referencing only Income-tax Form 26AS entries without independent verification or recording prerequisites for extended limitation under Finance Act 1994 Sections 73, 75, 77 and 78. Transition to GST via Section 142 did not cure jurisdictional defect in adjudication approach. Demand lacked substantiation beyond third-party tax deduction data. Court set aside order as unauthorized assumption of jurisdiction. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Pre-GST service tax disputes illustrate limits of 26AS-only adjudication. Editorial summary for Chartered Universe; not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.

Vishal Singh v. Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement)-25) (South Zone)

In favour of the assessee

Vishal Singh challenged detention of goods and conveyance before the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 15125 of 2026 (T-RES), decided 11 June 2026. Enforcement officials had detained the shipment citing quantity mismatch between documents and physical verification. The assessee had paid penalty pursuant to an appellate order while the revenue's suo motu revision remained pending under section 108 of the CGST Act. Invoking sections 129 and 130 read with Article 226, the Court directed protective release of goods subject to deposit of appropriate securities until the revision was finally decided. The arrangement balanced coercive detention powers against the assessee's commercial need to move stock. Outcome favoured the assessee. Useful precedent for interim relief during parallel revision proceedings. Not legal advice.

TVL. Alpha Tech v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

In favour of the assessee

TVL. Alpha Tech filed WP No. 20859 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; judgment 11 June 2026 on input tax credit. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer denied ITC because GSTR-3B for the disputed periods was filed late. The sole issue before the court was whether delay alone could sustain denial after the law was amended to insert Section 16(5), extending the date for filing returns and claiming credit to 30 November 2021 for eligible periods. The petitioner filed within that window. The court held rejection based exclusively on pre-amendment delay was untenable and set aside the impugned order. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Sections 16 and 39 govern return filing and credit entitlement. Chartered accountants should map client filing dates against Section 16(5) before accepting ITC denials. Not legal advice.

GSPR Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal

In favour of the assessee

GSPR Developers Pvt. Ltd. approached the Calcutta High Court (WPA No. 263 of 2026, 11 June 2026) after its Section 107 appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The adjudication order had been communicated only to its accountant, who failed to inform the company, delay surfacing when recovery began; pre-deposit had been paid. Das De J condoned delay for sufficient cause and directed admission of the appeal. Outcome favoured the assessee. Internal communication failures by agents may constitute sufficient cause for condonation when combined with compliance on pre-deposit. 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.

State of Karnataka v. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders A Sole Proprietorship

In favour of the revenue

In Writ Appeal No. 718 of 2025, decided by the Karnataka High Court on 10 June 2026, the State challenged directions that would require GST authorities to permit revised returns and waive interest, penalty, or limitation for a contractor seeking reimbursement of incremental GST on a government works contract. The contractor had argued contractual entitlement to pass-through of post-GST tax; the appellate bench held that reimbursement of tax paid or payable after 1 July 2017 is strictly a dispute between contractor and employer under their agreement. Statutory liability under section 9 and allied CGST provisions cannot be reshaped by contract, and courts cannot direct tax authorities to waive compliance timelines or limitation. Sections 73 and 108 were discussed in that context. The appeal favoured the revenue by confining contractual reimbursement to the employer relationship. Not legal advice.

State of Karnataka v. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders

In favour of the revenue

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.

State of Karnataka Department of Finance v. Unique Constructions

The State of Karnataka filed Writ Appeal No. 615 of 2025 before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, decided 10 June 2026, against a single-judge order directing reimbursement of differential GST to contractors including Unique Constructions. Contractors executed government works contracts priced inclusive of pre-GST taxes but sought pass-through of GST levied after 1 July 2017 on balance work. The appellate Court held reimbursement is strictly contractual between employer and contractor; section 9 CGST liability cannot be modified by writ directions waiving interest, penalty, limitation, or mandating revised returns before tax authorities. Directions binding GST authorities were set aside while employer-only reimbursement directions were clarified. Appeal largely favoured the revenue. Important for government contractor billing post-GST. Not legal advice.

Sri Chongtham Manabandra Singh v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

Sri Chongtham Manabandra Singh, a proprietorship assessee, filed writ before the Gauhati High Court (10 June 2026, WP (C) No. 3000 of 2026) against cancellation of GST registration for six months’ continuous non-filing of returns and against appellate rejection of his restoration plea. He offered to comply with the proviso to Rule 22(4) by filing pending returns and paying tax, interest, penalty and late fee. The Court permitted restoration on that basis, directed that statutory limitation under Sections 29, 30, 44 and 73 run from the order date, and required the proper officer to consider restoration expeditiously once compliance is shown. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Follows the Gauhati line treating return default as curable where cancellation is under Section 29(2)(c). Not legal advice.

Nuvteq Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-5)

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Nuvteq Solutions (P.) Ltd. challenged denial of export-of-services refund before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 16115 of 2026, 10 June 2026). Adjudication and appellate orders rejected eligibility solely for alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking under Section 54 and Rule 96A, without examining transaction nature or whether LUT was in fact furnished. Both orders were quashed and remanded for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on actual LUT compliance and export evidence. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Export service providers should maintain LUT filings and reconcile with refund rejections on merits, not bare procedural labels. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-10, High Court of Karnataka recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WRIT PETITION NO. 16115 OF 2026 (T-RES). Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.54, CGST Rules R.96A. 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.

Ganpati Rice Mill v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

Ganpati Rice Mill, a registered proprietorship, filed writ before the Gauhati High Court (10 June 2026, WP(C) No. 3046 of 2026) against GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns and failure to respond after suspension. The question was whether restoration remained available upon belated compliance. Following Section 29, Section 30 and Rule 22, the Court held that a taxpayer may seek restoration by furnishing pending returns and paying outstanding tax, interest, penalty and late fee; upon such compliance the proper officer must consider restoration per applicable rules. The petition was disposed of in favour of the assessee with directions to the authority to process restoration in line with prior Gauhati precedents on Rule 22(4). This summary is for professional awareness only and is not legal advice.