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
Tvl. Kodeeswaran Jewellers v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
In favour of the assessee
Tvl. Kodeeswaran Jewellers appealed before the Madras High Court (W.A.(MD) 774/2026, 1 June 2026) after an assessment order was communicated solely by portal upload. The jeweller, a small business, cited difficulty accessing the portal and missed the statutory appeal period. Sections 169 and 107 CGST framed service and appellate limitation. The Division Bench held it unreasonable to expect continuous portal monitoring in these circumstances; portal-only communication did not fairly start limitation. The appellant was granted fifteen additional days to file appeal and have it decided on merits without prejudice to the revenue's defence on assessment. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The judgment extends service fairness principles into appellate access for smaller traders in Tamil Nadu despite digital filing norms.
Renganathan & Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
In favour of the assessee
Renganathan & Sons, tobacco trader (Madras High Court, WP(MD) 26461 of 2025, 1 June 2026, G.R. Swaminathan, J.) disputed reclassification imposing higher compensation cess. Department treated product as manufactured tobacco under CETH 2403 99 entries after petitioner sprinkled jaggery water, shade-dried and bulked raw tobacco. Court found no manufacture altering essential character under Section 9 chargeability principles; processes were preparatory handling of unmanufactured tobacco classifiable under CETH 2401 20 90. Higher cess categories 2403 99 10/90 inapplicable. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Classification turns on whether processes amount to manufacture, not mere physical treatment or packaging. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. Material facts and holdings are drawn from the reported judgment.
MD. Nekib Hussain v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Before the Gauhati High Court (1 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2789 of 2026), Md. Nekib Hussain challenged registration cancellation for six months’ non-filing of returns and inability to apply for revocation because of portal restrictions that prevented timely filing of Form GST REG-21. He undertook to file all pending returns and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. The Court, in parity with Dhirghat Hardware Stores, applied Section 29 and Section 30 and held restoration appropriate where compliance cures the default that triggered cancellation under Section 29(2)(c), especially because cancellation carries serious civil consequences for continuing business. The writ was allowed in favour of the assessee with directions that the proper officer consider restoration expeditiously once compliance is demonstrated. Statutory limitation for demand and all outstanding dues remain payable. This is an editorial case summary for Chartered Accountants and is not legal advice.
Bhushan Chandra Deka v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The Gauhati High Court (1 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2730 of 2026) considered a works-contract proprietor whose GST registration was suspended and cancelled in 2024 after six months of non-filing of returns, following an unsuccessful appeal. The petitioner attributed the default to serious burn injuries from an LPG blast and stated that the statutory window for revocation on the portal had closed. Relying on Section 29(2)(c) and the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, and aligning with Dhirghat Hardware Stores, the Court held that cancellation carries serious civil consequences and that a taxpayer willing to cure the default may still be restored. The writ was allowed in favour of the assessee: the petitioner may apply within sixty days, file all pending returns, and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee; the proper officer must consider restoration expeditiously. Limitation under Section 73(10) runs from the order date, except FY 2024-25 under Section 44. This is a case-law summary, not legal advice.