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
Sri Nur Alom v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Sri Nur Alom challenged before the Gauhati High Court (11 September 2026, WP (C) No. 4971 of 2026) cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and dismissal of his restoration appeal as time-barred, leaving him without a registration needed for ongoing trade. The petitioner undertook to file all pending returns and pay tax, interest and penalty if cancellation were set aside. Writ relief set aside cancellation on condition of filing pending returns within thirty days with requisite payments; limitation under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) was directed to run from the present order except where Section 44 governed annual return timelines. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Shows writ courts granting compliance-based restoration when appellate forums reject on delay alone. Not legal advice.
VA Tech Wabag Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue
In favour of the assessee
VA Tech Wabag Ltd. approached the Calcutta High Court (WPA Nos. 14367, 14368, 14369, 14371 and 14372 of 2024, 10 September 2026; Smita Das De, J.) after the Appellate Authority rejected multiple appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act on limitation grounds. The company had paid mandatory pre-deposit but filed appeals late because the employee entrusted with GST compliance suffered serious illness, documented through medical certificates. The appellate forum declined condonation and did not examine whether sufficient cause existed. The court observed that mechanical rejection despite pre-deposit and credible medical explanation was hyper-technical and inconsistent with justice-oriented limitation jurisprudence. Delay reckoned from communication of the underlying adjudication orders was ordered condoned, appeals directed to be registered and heard on merits within the Section 107 framework. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Practitioners should note that illness of responsible personnel may constitute sufficient cause where properly evidenced. Not legal advice.
Tahir Khan v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal
See the decision
Tahir Khan approached the Calcutta High Court (WPA 9627/2024, 10 September 2026) with similar facts to companion logistics cases: show cause notice and adjudication order appeared under "Additional Notices and Orders" without separate intimation, and no personal hearing was afforded under Section 75 CGST read with Section 169. Unable to reply, the petitioner faced ex parte liability including interest and penalty. The court held natural justice was violated, quashed the impugned order and directed opportunity of personal hearing with a fresh speaking order on merits. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand. Tahir Khan illustrates the Calcutta High Court's consolidated approach to West Bengal portal-tab defects and "NA" hearing entries in 2024–2026 adjudications, leaving revenue free to re-determine tax after compliance with Section 169.
T. K. Logistics v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
T. K. Logistics filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 9623/2024, 10 September 2026) against an adjudication order and show cause notice demanding tax, interest and penalty uploaded only under the portal tab "Additional Notice and Orders," without separate intimation; personal hearing showed "NA." The company discovered the demand only when enforcement was initiated. Sections 169 and 75 CGST applied. The petitioner remained unaware and could not reply. Justice Smita Das De found breach of natural justice, quashed the order-in-original and remanded for hearing after valid notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The decision pairs mis-tabbed service with failure to grant Section 75 personal hearing as grounds to reopen GST demands in West Bengal, consistent with Raju Ghosh and Tahir Khan.
Sumant Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of CGST & CX
In favour of the assessee
Sumant Kumar Agarwal filed before the Calcutta High Court; order dated 10 September 2026. Revenue had reversed input tax credit citing delayed GST return filing. After retrospective insertion of Sections 16(5) and 16(6) from 1 July 2017, the assessee filed a rectification application and returns within the extended period contemplated by the amendment. There was no substantive dispute that filing met the relaxed timeline. Lower appellate authorities nevertheless rejected relief, ignoring both the retrospective extension and the pending rectification. The High Court termed that approach perverse and set aside the orders, directing appropriate relief in line with Section 16. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Section 74 featured in the underlying demand context. This self-contained summary is not legal advice.
Ratnaka Enterprises v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee
Ratnaka Enterprises filed a writ before the High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 24249 of 2024, decided 10 September 2026) against a penalty equal to 200 percent of tax on goods in transit under Section 129 of the CGST Act. At police interception the only lapse identified was non-extension of the e-way bill under Rule 138 and Section 68; the materials on record showed no other contravention such as invoice mismatch or tax evasion. The court found the penalty disproportionate to the proven default and procedurally unfair, violating natural justice. Authorities were directed to refund amounts recovered as penalty. The outcome favoured the assessee. Expiry of e-way bill validity during transit alone did not justify maximum penalty where no further evasion was established on facts.
Raj Kumar Borthakur v. Joint Commissioner of Revenue
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Raj Kumar Borthakur (WPA No. 464 of 2026) challenged an adjudication order for April 2017 to March 2018 before the High Court of Calcutta on 9 September 2026. The confirmed demand for tax, interest, and penalty exceeded amounts proposed in the show cause notice, which Sections 73 and 75 do not permit without fresh notice on enhanced grounds. The court remanded by treating the impugned order as a new show cause notice and requiring fresh response and adjudication. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Enhanced demands without supplemental SCN remain a common adjudication defect in West Bengal GST practice. CAs should reconcile DRC-01 figures with DRC-07 before advising payment. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-09, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPA NO. 464 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, 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.
Nand Kishore Garg v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Nand Kishore Garg filed a writ before the High Court of Uttarakhand (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 704 of 2026, decided 9 September 2026) after rejection of a rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST Act as time-barred. The assessee had filed within time under Notification No. 22/2024-CT; the authority treated the three-month timeline for disposal as mandatory and declared itself functus officio upon expiry. The court held the three-month period is directory, not mandatory—mere expiry does not extinguish jurisdiction to decide on merits. Rejection without considering the application substantively was unsustainable. The matter was remanded for decision on merits under Section 161. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
Hanumant Steel Traders v. Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the assessee
Hanumant Steel Traders (WPT Nos. 11, 12 and 15 of 2026) succeeded before the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 9 September 2026 against show cause notices under Section 74 alleging input tax credit through fake invoices. The court found the notices reproduced statutory phrases on fraud or suppression without disclosing foundational facts or adequate reasoning. Such skeletal notices could not sustain coercive action. The notices were quashed with liberty to the department to issue fresh notices conforming to principles of natural justice and Section 74 requirements. Outcome favoured the assessee. The decision underscores that invocation of extended limitation for fraud must be factually substantiated in the notice itself. Summary for CA readers only; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-09, High Court of Chhattisgarh recorded in favour of the assessee in WPT NO. 11, 12 AND 15 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.
Babita Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Babita Sharma (Calcutta High Court, WPA 1633 of 2026, 9 September 2026, Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) received order under Section 73 passed after summary show cause without personal hearing or communicated date, time and venue—contravening Section 75(4) mandatory hearing framework. Court set aside order directing fresh adjudication. Because writ was belated, relief conditioned on deposit of ten per cent of disputed tax as equitable precondition to remand. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded subject to deposit. Shows courts may impose partial pre-deposit even in natural-justice successes when writ delay exists, alongside full rehearing rights. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. The court left substantive tax merits open for the authority to decide afresh on record.
Sumin Dutta v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Sumin Dutta challenged GST adjudication before the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 17905 of 2026, decided 8 September 2026. A summary show cause notice and subsequent ex parte order were uploaded only under the GST portal's "Additional Notices and Orders" tab without separate intimation, which delayed the assessee's awareness and reply. Personal hearing was not granted despite the explicit mandate of section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Court found cumulative procedural infirmities under sections 73, 75, and 169 sufficient to vitiate the adjudication process and the resulting demand. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the assessee's reply after affording a proper personal hearing and passing a fresh speaking order on merits. The outcome favoured the assessee with remand. This summary is for professional reading only and is not legal advice.
King Impex v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the assessee
King Impex filed W.P. (C) No. 11434 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court; decision 8 September 2026. During demand proceedings the assessee paid pre-deposit; after partial success in appeal it obtained refund of the pre-deposit amount but the department delayed payment of statutory interest. The issue was whether Section 56 mandatorily requires interest on sanctioned refunds from the prescribed date. The court held authorities have no discretion to deny interest once refund is allowed under Section 54; Section 56 automatically triggers quantification and payment. Directions issued to compute and release due interest. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Relevant for appeal workflow and cash-flow planning after partial relief. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Interest runs from statutory dates even when refund of pre-deposit follows partial appellate success, protecting assessee cash flow.
Chandan Kumar Giri v. State of West Bengal
See the decision
Chandan Kumar Giri filed writ before the Calcutta High Court (8 September 2026, WPA No. 23778 of 2026) after his GST portal access was blocked, preventing filing of GSTR-1, amid registration-related anomalies following a field inspection and ongoing proceedings against his registration. The Court did not finally adjudicate allegations of bogus registration or tax evasion on writ. Instead it directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation rebutting allegations with documents, and remanded the matter for administrative verification and personal hearing. Portal access was to be restored if, after hearing, the authorities found the assessee bona fide, under Sections 37, 146 and Rule 59. Outcome: remanded for administrative decision—the headnote outcome is see the decision. Procedural roadmap when returns are blocked pending verification. Not legal advice.
Arun Kumar Dutta v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Arun Kumar Dutta’s appeal before the Calcutta High Court (WPA No. 6436 of 2026, 8 September 2026) concerned GST adjudication where the SCN and order appeared only under the portal’s “Additional Notice and Orders” tab without separate intimation under Section 169 CGST. The appellate authority dismissed the Section 107 appeal on limitation without hearing merits. The Court held this procedural lapse violated natural justice, quashed the appellate order, and directed admission and decision on merits. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Relying solely on portal uploads without clear communication can invalidate limitation-based dismissals. 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.
SRD Groups v. State of Assam
In favour of the assessee
SRD Groups succeeded in the Gauhati High Court (7 September 2026, WP(C) No. 4818 of 2026) where GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to the departmental notice, leaving the petitioner unable to carry on lawful business. The writ sought restoration on undertaking to regularize returns. The Court allowed restoration subject to filing all pending returns within thirty days and confirmed continued liability for tax, interest, penalty and late fee under Sections 29, 30, 39, 44, 73 and 74, aligning limitation for demand with the date of the court order where applicable. Outcome: in favour of the assessee on compliance terms. Typical Gauhati restoration template after return-default cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). Editorial summary only; not legal advice.
Nizora Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Nizora Projects (P.) Ltd. filed writ in the Gauhati High Court (7 September 2026, WP(C) No. 4802 of 2026) after GST registration was cancelled without service of a show-cause notice; the company cited unfamiliarity with the GST portal for delayed return filing rather than deliberate default. The revenue did not demonstrate compliance with Rule 22 procedure before passing the cancellation order under Section 29. The Court held that cancellation without a valid SCN is void ab initio and that assessees must still regularize compliance once registration is restored. Cancellation was set aside, the company was allowed to file pending returns within thirty days, and the statutory period for related proceedings was directed to be computed from the judgment date while tax, penalty, interest and late fee remained payable. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Useful on service requirements and fresh limitation from court orders. Not legal advice.
Kappa Chakka Kandhari Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals- I)
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Kappa Chakka Kandhari Foods Pvt. Ltd. paid tax and interest from an adjudication order but appealed only the penalty via DRC-07 before the Madras High Court (WP No. 34361 of 2026, 7 September 2026). The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal for non-payment of 10% pre-deposit of penalty under Section 107(6) CGST. Ramamoorthy J held the proviso applies only where the order demands penalty without any tax; here tax had been paid, so rejection was unsustainable and the appeal was restored for merits. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. 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.
Harphool Chowdhury @ Harphool Choudhary v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Harphool Chowdhury challenged an adjudication order for July 2017 to March 2018 before the High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 1952 of 2026, 7 September 2026). Under Sections 73 and 75 of the CGST Act, personal hearing is mandatory where an adverse decision is contemplated; the show cause notice indicated such a decision yet no opportunity of hearing was granted. The order was unsustainable and quashed; the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after personal hearing. An attachment order linked to the defective adjudication was also set aside. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Chartered accountants should verify DRC-01 hearing schedules and compliance with Section 75(4) before final orders. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-07, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPA NO.1952 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included 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.
Danish Hassan v. UT of J&K
In favour of the assessee
Danish Hassan filed a writ before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (WP(C) No. 2538 of 2024, 7 September 2026) against penalty and detention orders under Section 129 of the CGST Act. Goods and a conveyance had been intercepted and detained; the show cause notice under the mandatory timeline was served more than seven days after detention—even by one day. The court held that Section 129 requires strict compliance with the seven-day period for notice from the date of detention, protecting taxpayers against prolonged detention without timely process. The delay vitiated the entire penalty proceedings. All consequent orders were set aside. The outcome favoured the assessee. Timely SCN issuance is not a mere formality under Section 129.
Ajijul Haque @ Hoque v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee
Ajijul Haque @ Hoque challenged cancellation of GST registration before the High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 1964 of 2026, decided 7 September 2026). Registration was cancelled for six-month default in filing returns without specific allegation of tax evasion; the petitioner undertook to file all pending returns and pay outstanding dues. Under Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act, the court found abrupt cancellation counterproductive to revenue recovery where compliance could be restored through conditional relief. The cancellation order was set aside subject to the petitioner fulfilling filing and payment requirements within directed timelines, enabling restoration of registration upon compliance. Outcome favoured the assessee on conditional terms rather than unconditional reinstatement. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.