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.
264 rulings
Commissioner of Central Tax v. Sadguru Infratech (P.) Ltd
In favour of the revenue
The Commissioner of Central Tax appealed before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Appeal No. 1076 of 2023, decided 10 June 2026) against a Single Judge order favouring Sadguru Infratech (P) Ltd. A sub-contractor had filed GST returns belatedly; garnishee action under Section 79 sought recovery of interest on delayed tax payment under Sections 39 and 50. The Single Judge had permitted filing or amendments of returns post 1 July 2017 without insisting on interest, penalty, or limitation and had restrained recovery. The Division Bench held that interest liability arises by statutory mandate under Section 9 read with Section 50 and cannot be waived or reduced in the absence of a specific enabling provision; Section 128 did not apply. The appeal was allowed in favour of the revenue.
Sri Nav Visw Ratna Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee
Sri Nav Visw Ratna Industries petitioned the High Court of Madras (W.P. No. 19778 of 2026, decided 9 June 2026) against penalty and late fee for delayed filing of the annual return under Section 44. The delay was substantial (995 days). The statute prescribes late fee under Section 47 for that default; a separate general penalty under Section 125 for the same default was held impermissible as duplicative of the specific statutory consequence. Late fee was upheld on facts; the penalty component was set aside. The outcome favoured the assessee. Chartered accountants advising on annual return compliance should note that specific late fee generally exhausts the sanction for that default absent distinct contraventions. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
Rithwik Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Rithwik Projects (P.) Ltd., a construction company, challenged consolidated show cause notice and composite order demanding GST, interest, and penalty for multiple years. The High Court of Bombay (Writ Petition No. 4061 of 2026, 9 June 2026) under Section 74 held clubbing of periods beyond statutory jurisdiction; assessments must be period-specific. Consolidated notice, order, and recovery were void ab initio and not cured by admission or estoppel; writ was maintainable. All impugned actions were quashed. Outcome favoured the assessee. Bombay High Court joins other forums in rejecting composite fraud proceedings across FYs. Construction sector audits often span multiple years—periodisation is critical. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-09, High Court of Bombay recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 4061 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74. 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.
ISC Processors (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North
In favour of the revenue
ISC Processors (P.) Ltd. filed a writ under Article 226 against a show cause notice, citing lack of jurisdiction and bona fide GST-paid purchases, while the department alleged supplies from non-existent vendors and ineligible ITC. The High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 10744 of 2026, 9 June 2026), applying Section 75, declined interference because only a notice existed and full statutory adjudication—including reply and hearing—remained available. The petitioner was directed to respond and the authority to adjudicate after hearing both sides. Outcome favoured the revenue in the sense that the writ was not entertained on merits at the pre-adjudication stage. Residual disputes are for the adjudication and appeal chain. Informational summary; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-09, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the revenue in WPA NO. 10744 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, Constitution Art.226. 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.
GVS Engineering and Construction v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
See the decision
GVS Engineering and Construction challenged blocking of input tax credit before the Karnataka High Court (WP 16897/2026, 9 June 2026) after the department invoked Rule 86A alleging use of fake invoices without prior notice or prescribed procedure. Sections 169 and Rule 86A CGST Rules framed the dispute. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad held the impugned blocking failed to conform to settled legal principles requiring notice and adherence to Rule 86A process before restricting electronic credit ledger entries. The blocking was quashed with direction to immediately unblock the ledger and permit fresh proceedings only in accordance with Rule 86A. Outcome favoured the assessee on procedural grounds. The case clarifies that ITC blocking is not a silent administrative step but must follow rule-based safeguards.
Gayathri Enterprises v. Joint Commissioner, Appeals-II
In favour of the revenue
Gayathri Enterprises challenged IGST demand on export supplies before the Telangana High Court (Writ Petition No. 8187 of 2026, 9 June 2026), alleging natural justice breaches and reliance on Notification 41/2017-IGST (Rate). The appellate authority had examined materials but found insufficient invoice-wise correlation. No jurisdictional error or mala fides was shown; Article 226 was declined under Sections 107 and 112 CGST in favour of GSTAT. Outcome favoured revenue on writ maintainability. Export IGST disputes with heavy fact-finding belong in the appellate chain, not writ, when prior orders are reasoned. 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.
Zyvana Integrated Services (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Zyvana Integrated Services (P.) Ltd. filed W.P. No. 10854 of 2025 before the Madras High Court; decision 8 June 2026. The assessee disclosed outward supplies in GSTR-1 for certain tax periods but failed to discharge corresponding output tax in GSTR-3B within time. It cited delayed customer receipts and denied evasion intent. The court acknowledged statutory liability for short payment but, in light of Section 128A amnesty and GST Council deliberations, held such defaults warrant determination under Section 73 rather than the more stringent Section 74 track where appropriate. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. Outcome: in favour of assessee with remand. Not legal advice. Classification between Sections 73 and 74 affects penalty exposure and amnesty, warranting careful framing of SCN allegations.
Tvl. Technocast Foundry v. State Tax Officer
In favour of the revenue
Tvl. Technocast Foundry, a registered manufacturer, challenged tax demands before the Madras High Court on 8 June 2026 in connected writ petitions. The dispute arose after the assessee failed to maintain prescribed job-work records or file Form ITC-04, attributing gaps to alleged technical issues, and could not prove timely return of goods sent for job work. Under section 143 of the CGST Act read with Rule 45, movement without compliance was treated as a taxable supply, supporting tax, interest, and equal penalty. Extended limitation under section 74 was upheld because statutory exceptions were not attracted and the threshold for such invocation under GST is lower than under prior indirect tax regimes. The Court dismissed the writs, favouring the revenue. The decision underscores job-work documentation obligations for manufacturers. Not legal advice.
Tvl. Power Lead Electricals v. Deputy State Tax Officer
In favour of the revenue
Tvl. Power Lead Electricals filed W.P. No. 31815 of 2025 before the Madras High Court; decision 8 June 2026. A demand arose from differences between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B reflecting input tax credit. The assessee contended proceedings under Section 73 were time-barred because the department did not initiate action within the normal limitation. The revenue relied on Section 168A, which excluded certain periods during Covid-19 from limitation computation. The court held the exclusion applied and proceedings were not barred. The writ was dismissed; outcome in favour of revenue. Sections 16, 73, 74 and 168A frame limitation in mismatch cases. CAs should note extended timelines when advising on ITC reconciliation disputes. This summary is not legal advice. Assessees cannot assume Covid-era filing delays automatically extinguish mismatch-based demands without applying the statutory exclusion formula.
Tvl. Noyyal Common Effluent Treatment Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
In favour of the revenue
Tvl. Noyyal Common Effluent Treatment Company Ltd. filed W.P. No. 26246 of 2024 before the Madras High Court; judgment 8 June 2026. The company initially paid GST at a lower rate on its supplies; after departmental intimation that a higher rate applied it paid the differential tax. It challenged interest on the belated portion. The court held interest arises under Sections 50 and 75 in determination and recovery proceedings and continues to be payable even after the differential tax is paid or offered in instalments. Recovery under Section 79 was justified. Writ dismissed; outcome in favour of revenue. Rule 142 featured in procedural context. Summary for rate-dispute and interest exposure; not legal advice. CETPs and utilities correcting rate misclassification should budget interest from the original due date, not only from intimation.
Tvl. K.Ezhil Arasan, Contractor v. Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence
In favour of the revenue
Contractor Tvl. K. Ezhil Arasan challenged demand orders before the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 172 and 382 of 2025, decided 8 June 2026, confirming tax, interest, and penalty under section 74 of the CGST Act. The proceedings followed show cause notices citing discrepancies between GSTR-9, Form 26AS, GSTR-7, and GSTR-3B, with allegations of willful misstatement or suppression to evade tax. The petitioner's replies did not effectively rebut the department's material, including inspection records. The Court held that invocation of section 74 and confirmation of equal penalty on prima facie suppression was valid and not amenable to writ review at the interim stage. The writ petitions were dismissed and the outcome favoured the revenue. This summary is intended for chartered accountants and is not legal advice.
Tvl. Daisyrani Eng. Constructions v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise
In favour of the assessee
Tvl. Daisyrani Eng. Constructions challenged ITC denial in WP No. 19198 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; decision 8 June 2026. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise had rejected credit by applying the limitation in Section 16(4) as it stood before Parliament added Section 16(5), which statutorily relaxed time limits for returns and rectification from 1 July 2017. Once the amendment took effect, the legal basis for denial on old limitation grounds ceased to apply to eligible filers. The court set aside the order and restored the assessee’s ability to claim credit subject to other conditions in Section 16. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Sections 16 and 39 were central. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
Tata Projects Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Tata Projects Ltd. and connected petitioners challenged consolidated show cause notices and consolidated demand orders spanning multiple financial years before the Gauhati High Court in writ petitions decided on 8 June 2026. They argued that sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act require financial-year-wise segregation of notices and orders, and that composite proceedings breached limitation and fairness. Justice Devashis Baruah held the statutes do not mandate separate notices or orders for each year where a composite demand is raised, provided there is no statutory bar or Article 14 violation. Limitation principles must still be applied period-wise when assessing validity. Consolidated proceedings were upheld and the petitions were dismissed in favour of the revenue. The ruling is useful for CAs advising on multi-year SCNs and composite DRC-07 orders. Not legal advice.
Super Traders v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Super Traders, a partnership dealing in uniforms and furniture, filed writ in the Gauhati High Court (8 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2949 of 2026) after cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns; it had thereafter filed all pending returns and offered full compliance with the proviso to Rule 22(4) including payment of tax arrears, interest, penalty and late fees. The issue was whether restoration must be granted where the default that led to cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) had been cured before the Court. Restoration was held permissible upon timely application and payment in line with prior Gauhati precedent under Sections 29 and 30 and Rules 22 and 23, with directions to the proper officer to process restoration expeditiously. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Not legal advice.
Sri Pankaj Kr Agarwal Alias Pankaj Agarwal v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Sri Pankaj Kr Agarwal filed writ in the Gauhati High Court (8 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2932 of 2026) after cancellation of GST registration for six months’ non-filing of returns and inability to complete revocation within the portal timeline. He relied on coordinate bench precedents allowing restoration where the taxpayer cures the default under the proviso to Rule 22(4). Following Rule 22(4) and Sections 30, 44 and 73, the Court allowed restoration upon filing pending returns and clearing tax, interest, penalty and late fee, with Section 73(10) limitation computed from the order except for financial year 2024-25 which remains governed by Section 44. Outcome: assessee-favourable with compliance framework and remand to the proper officer for expeditious processing. Not legal advice.
Southern Steels v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
In favour of the revenue
Southern Steels, which operated two GST registrations, challenged invocation of the extended limitation period before the Madras High Court in consolidated writ petitions decided on 8 June 2026. Department inspection had revealed circular transactions and fictitious input tax credit on non-supplies across the registrations. The assessee argued procedural defects in proceedings tied to the Erode registration. The Court, referring to sections 74 and 75 of the CGST Act and Rule 142, held that prima facie findings of fraud or collusion justified extended-period invocation for both registrations, and that procedural requirements for the Erode registration had been duly followed. It emphasised that the threshold for invoking extended limitation under the GST regime is lower than under earlier indirect tax laws. The writs were dismissed, favouring the revenue. For CA reference only; not legal advice.
Smti Ivy Dutta v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Smti Ivy Dutta approached the Gauhati High Court (8 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2913 of 2026) after registration cancellation for non-filing of returns and alleged non-response to a show-cause notice, and after her attempt at revocation faced procedural hurdles on the portal. The issue was whether she retained access to restoration under Sections 29 and 30 and Rules 22 and 23 once she was willing to regularize compliance. Following coordinate bench decisions on similar facts, the Court held the assessee may apply within sixty days from the order, file all pending returns and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee, whereupon the authority must consider restoration expeditiously in accordance with the proviso to Rule 22(4). Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Consistent with Gauhati jurisprudence on Rule 22(4) compliance paths. Summary only; not legal advice.
Sameera Hotels (Chennai) (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (Inspection-I)
In favour of the revenue
Sameera Hotels (Chennai) (P.) Ltd. (W.P. Nos. 33258 et seq. of 2025) failed to quash Section 74 proceedings before the High Court of Madras on 8 June 2026. Revenue showed excess ITC availment over GSTR-2A and non-payment of reverse charge on foreign agency commissions, constituting wrongful availment and suppression with intent to evade tax. Extended limitation under Sections 73, 74, and 75 was justified. Writ dismissed; outcome favoured the revenue. Hospitality and agency-fee structures should reconcile 2A, RCM liabilities, and ITC claims to avoid fraud-track notices. Merits may still be contested in appeal. Informational summary; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-08, High Court of Madras recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P. NOS. 33258, 33262, 33268, 33272 AND 33275 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, CGST S.73, 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.
RMZ Infinity (Chennai) (P) Ltd v. Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai
In favour of the revenue
RMZ Infinity (Chennai) (P) Ltd filed W.P. No. 14847 of 2025 before the Madras High Court; order dated 8 June 2026. The assessee claimed input tax credit on works contracts and construction expenditure for immovable property that was rented out. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai denied the credit and the writ challenged that denial. The central question was whether Section 17(5)(d) barred ITC on construction of immovable property used in the business. The court held that renting a building does not bring the asset within the narrow “plant or machinery” exception, so credit on such construction is blocked. The writ was dismissed and the denial upheld—outcome in favour of revenue. Sections 16, 17 and 74 were cited. Useful for CAs advising real-estate and leasing entities on blocked credits. Not legal advice.
Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. filed writs before the Madras High Court (WP 10053–10056/2026, 8 June 2026) against orders treating SEZ unit supplies and services for authorized operations as not zero-rated because Letter of Undertaking and SEZ Certificate were not on record, under IGST Section 16 and Rule 96A. Refunds or benefits of zero rating were denied across multiple tax periods. During proceedings the assessee offered documents for verification. The court set aside adjudication orders and remanded to enable submission and verification as Section 16 requires. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. SEZ developers and units facing refund denial for documentary gaps may secure remand where willingness to produce LOU and SEZ certificate is demonstrated rather than refusing zero rating outright.