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
Ragini Communication v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Ragini Communication argued before the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 3640 of 2025, 3 September 2026) that no valid Section 73 notice was served for alleged wrongful ITC. Records showed service of a detailed demand-cum-show-cause notice for the relevant period under Rules 142 and Section 75. The writ under Article 226 was dismissed as unfounded on the notice issue; proceedings were not without jurisdiction. Residual grievances were relegated to appeal under Section 107. Outcome favoured the revenue. Assessees claiming non-service must prove portal or physical service records carefully; consolidated DRC-01 with substance may suffice in Gauhati. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-03, High Court of Gauhati recorded in favour of the revenue in WP(C) NO. 3640 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST Rules R.142, 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.
MAC Industry v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
MAC Industry challenged refund denial before the High Court of Gujarat (R/Special Civil Application No. 1693 of 2026, decided 3 September 2026) under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules restricting IGST refund on exports. The show cause notice and consequential order were issued after Rule 96(10) was omitted from the rules without a saving clause. Relying on IGST Section 16, CGST Section 54, Rule 96, and the Gujarat High Court decision in Goodluck India Ltd., the court held the restriction could not survive for pending or subsequent proceedings. Related SCN and orders were quashed. Outcome favoured the assessee. Omission of a restrictive rule without savings typically ends its application to new adjudication. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
HD Associates v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
HD Associates challenged a search at its partnership firm's business premises before the Gauhati High Court (WP(C) 3066/2026, 3 September 2026), contending that the action under Section 67 CGST was void for want of valid authorization and that reasons ought to have been disclosed beforehand. The department relied on FORM GST INS-01 authorization and related powers under the CGST Act and Rules, including Rules 139 and 99, with potential follow-on proceedings under Sections 61, 74, 74A, 75 and 122. The court found that valid authorization existed on the record and that the statute does not require prior disclosure of reasons to the taxable person at the search stage. Allegations of vitiated search therefore failed. The adjudicating authority was directed to verify the validity of authorization and seized records during adjudication on merits. The writ relief sought by the assessee was rejected. Outcome: in favour of the revenue, affirming that authorized search under Section 67 is not defeasible merely because the assessee was not pre-informed of the underlying intelligence or reasons.
Ramalingam Chellapppa v. Superintendent
In favour of the assessee
Ramalingam Chellapppa approached the Madras High Court (1 September 2026, WP (MD) No. 25121 of 2026) for restoration after cancellation of his GST registration following default in return compliance. The department opposed restoration on the same grounds litigated in earlier Madras High Court jurisprudence. The Court followed Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy and held the controversy fully covered by that precedent under Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act, requiring no fresh merits inquiry where facts and legal issues were indistinguishable. Cancellation was set aside and registration directed restored subject to specified compliance conditions including filing of pending returns and payment of statutory dues. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Illustrates binding effect of coordinate bench rulings on parallel registration-restoration facts. Summary for professionals; not legal advice.
Supra Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner
In favour of the revenue
Supra Enterprises, a GST-registered partnership, filed W.P.(C) No. 11352 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court; the matter was decided on 31 August 2026 against a demand following a show cause notice alleging suppression and wrongful availment of input tax credit. The department contended that full opportunity to reply and be heard was provided, and that remaining disputes concerned appraisal of records and merits under sections 73, 74, 65, and 75 of the CGST Act. The Court agreed that where replies were on record and issues are essentially factual or evidentiary, Article 226 is not a substitute for appellate scrutiny under the GST statute. The writ petition was held not maintainable and the assessee was relegated to the statutory appeal forum. The decision favoured the revenue on jurisdiction. This editorial note is not legal advice.
Naganath Constructions v. Government of Karnataka
In favour of the assessee
Naganath Constructions and allied petitioners filed before the Karnataka High Court (WP 105663, 105759 and 106110/2026, 31 August 2026) as Class-I contractors who executed civil works for the State, paid differential GST after transition under Section 142 CGST, and sought reimbursement. With the State benefiting from completed works, the court held contractors acquired a legal right to reimbursement of incremental GST liability arising from transition, consistent with Er. Roland S. State entities were directed to promptly verify and pay differential amounts confined to GST introduction impact rather than unrelated contractual disputes. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Bulk contractor petitions reinforce Karnataka's direction on government reimbursement of transition differentials subject to verification of invoices, challans, contract rates, payments and Section 142 transition claims.
BA Continuum India (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
BA Continuum India Pvt. Ltd. filed Writ Petition No. 3598 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court (31 August 2026) after the Appellate Authority dismissed its refund appeal solely for non-attendance without a speaking order on merits under Section 107 CGST. Karnik and Patil JJ held such dismissal breached statutory mandate and natural justice, quashed the order, and restored the appeal for merit-based adjudication. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Appellate authorities must address substantive refund grounds even when parties default on hearings, or give reasoned orders. 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.
Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)
In favour of the assessee
ESNP Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court, decided 28 August 2026, contesting denial of input tax credit on inputs used to construct property intended for lease or license. The revenue invoked blocked credit for immovable property under section 17. The Court noted Chief Commissioner v. Safari Retreats on construction for own business use and held orders ignored that principle under sections 54 and 79 and Rule 142B. Impugned orders were set aside for fresh evaluation applying Safari Retreats to lease-intent facts. Outcome favoured the assessee. Relevant for builders structuring commercial premises and ITC claims. Not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
Gita Rani Pan v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The High Court of Calcutta (W.P.A. No. 10402 of 2025, 27 August 2026) set aside fraud-related demand and recovery action where notice and recovery were issued in the name of a deceased sole proprietor. Gita Rani Pan, as legal representative, challenged proceedings under Sections 74 and 93 of the CGST Act. The court held that determination against a person who no longer existed was void ab initio; a show cause notice in such cases must be directed to legal representatives under the post-death liability scheme, not to the deceased taxpayer. Consequent demand and recovery based on the defective notice could not stand. The writ succeeded for the assessee. The ruling clarifies procedural prerequisites before invoking extended limitation under Section 74 against an estate. Not legal advice.
Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Cart Infralog Ltd. challenged input tax credit recovery before the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 16556 of 2025, decided 27 August 2026. The assessee demonstrated valid tax invoices, physical receipt of goods, and payment to suppliers for the transactions in dispute. Recovery was nevertheless pursued because suppliers failed to deposit GST and corresponding entries did not appear in GSTR-2A. Justice Smita Das De held that, absent collusion or fraud by the recipient, coercive recovery from the purchaser was without jurisdiction under sections 16, 73, 74, and 79 of the CGST Act; the department should first proceed against defaulting suppliers under section 79. The impugned recovery was quashed and the matter remanded for lawful action. Outcome favoured the assessee. This editorial summary is for chartered accountants and is not legal advice.
Super Wave Technology (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Super Wave Technology (P) Ltd. filed a writ before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 13162 of 2026, decided 24 August 2026) after denial of refund based on transitional input tax credit for an X-ray inspection system imported before GST rollout, claimed through GSTR-3B following central administrative advice. Revenue cited closure of the TRAN-1 window and jurisdictional objections without examining entitlement on merits. Under Sections 54, 140, and Rule 117, the court found refund was never adjudicated substantively. The petitioner was granted liberty to represent before the central assessing authority for a decision on transitional credit eligibility. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand for substantive consideration rather than outright grant of refund. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
Metal Trade Incorporation v. State Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee
Metal Trade Incorporation filed WP No. 35866 of 2023 before the Madras High Court, decided 21 August 2026, challenging prolonged blocking of its electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules. Restrictions continued for more than two years despite the rule prescribing a maximum one-year limitation period, after which blocked credit must be unblocked automatically. Internal departmental communications were held incapable of lawfully extending the restriction beyond the statutory period. Justice S. Raveekumar declared the continued blockage invalid and granted relief restoring normal ledger operations essential for return filing and working capital management. Outcome favoured the assessee. Chartered accountants should monitor Rule 86A timelines closely and contest overlong administrative freezes through timely writ or representation. Not legal advice.
Vishwa Vinayaka Build Tech v. State of Andhra Pradesh
In favour of the assessee
Vishwa Vinayaka Build Tech, a GST-registered trader, challenged Writ Petition No. 22163 of 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 20 August 2026. The revenue had passed a composite assessment under section 73 of the CGST Act imposing one hundred per cent penalty across multiple tax periods in a single Form GST DRC-07 order. The assessee argued that consolidated adjudication prevented period-wise appeals and obscured limitation analysis. The Court held the statutory scheme requires separate orders for each tax period; composite assessments impair appellate rights and weaken procedural safeguards. On that procedural ground the impugned order was set aside without finally deciding underlying input tax credit merits. The department may issue fresh period-wise notices if advised. Outcome favoured the assessee. This editorial summary is for chartered accountants and is not legal advice.
Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
In favour of the revenue; matter remanded
Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant filed WP No. 31773 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; order 19 August 2026. Under Section 128A the petitioner paid the entire admitted tax before the notified cut-off but submitted the formal amnesty application after the prescribed deadline in Rule 164. The court affirmed the filing deadline is mandatory, not directory, which favoured revenue on strict timing. However, given full tax payment and revenue protection, an ex parte rejection was set aside and the case remanded for reconsideration after granting reasonable opportunity to be heard. Outcome: mixed—remand benefits assessee procedurally. Sections 128A and 50 contextualised interest waiver. CAs should calendar amnesty filing dates carefully. Not legal advice. Restaurants and SMEs should treat Rule 164 filing dates as hard deadlines separate from tax payment under Section 128A.
Umen Chandra Roy v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Umen Chandra Roy succeeded in part before the Calcutta High Court (17 August 2026, WPA No. 1360 of 2026) where a rectification application seeking correction of input tax credit in returns was rejected because it was filed beyond a six-month period stated in departmental circulars, even though Section 16(5) of the CGST Act does not prescribe a limitation for availing ITC subject to other conditions. The petitioner invoked Article 226, arguing executive instructions under Section 168 cannot curtailed substantive statutory rights. The Court held rejection based solely on circular delay was unsustainable and remanded the rectification application for consideration on merits, leaving scope to reject only if delay was shown to be unexplained or exceptional on facts. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand under Article 226. Relevant for ITC rectification beyond internal departmental timelines. Not legal advice.
Morvi Nandan Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh
In favour of the assessee
Morvi Nandan Healthcare (P.) Ltd. obtained relief from the Chhattisgarh High Court (17 August 2026, WPT No. 179 of 2025) where registration was cancelled for alleged non-operation at the declared place of business following field verification. The Form GST REG-17 show-cause notice omitted the date and time for personal hearing as contemplated under Rules 21 and 22, depriving the company of a clear opportunity to present its case. The Court held this breached natural justice and invalidated the notice and cancellation order, observing that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed even where an alternative statutory remedy might exist under Section 29. Both the SCN and cancellation were quashed with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law after issuing a compliant notice. Outcome: assessee-favourable. The decision stresses procedural completeness in REG-17 notices before adverse registration action. Summary only; not legal advice.
Sri Vijaya Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes
In favour of the assessee
Sri Vijaya Traders (Andhra Pradesh High Court, WP 23181 of 2026, 14 August 2026) failed to file GSTR-3B for March 2025 prompting Section 62 assessment. Dealer later filed return, paying tax with late fee under Section 47 and interest under Section 50. Issue was whether assessment survived belated compliance. Court held Section 62(2) operates to deem assessment withdrawn upon filing return and paying tax; consequential coercive proceedings tied to Section 62 order revoked. Liability for interest and late fee nonetheless continues independently. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Practical lesson: post-Section 62 compliance remains valuable remedial step for registered dealers facing best-judgment orders. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. Material facts and holdings are drawn from the reported judgment.
Plus Max Duty Free (Kovai) (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee
Plus Max Duty Free (Kovai) (P.) Ltd. filed before the Madras High Court (WP 25986 and 25991/2026, 14 August 2026) for refund of service tax paid on licence fees and conservancy charges at airport duty-free outlets under the pre-GST regime, after claims were rejected as time-barred despite a favourable CESTAT ruling. Section 142 CGST, Finance Act 1994 Section 83 and Central Excise Sections 11B and 11BB framed transitional refund. Following binding Division Bench precedent in Union of India v. Flemingo Duty Free Shop (P.) Ltd., refunds were directed to be processed with applicable interest rather than dismissed on limitation alone. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Duty-free operators may pursue legacy service tax refunds post-GST transition when Flemingo lineage applies to airport concession payments.
Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises v. State Bank of India
See the decision
Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court (WPC 4234/2026, 14 August 2026) against State Bank of India after its meal-supply tender bid was rejected despite quoting identical rates to another bidder, amid GST ambiguity on the contract. CGST Section 9 and Articles 226 and 14 were invoked. Post-bid offers and delay or unpaid-dues allegations did not establish illegality, arbitrariness or breach of tender terms. Judicial review under Article 226 ensures fair process, not merits revision or contract re-writing. The writ was dismissed on limited constitutional review grounds without examining whether GST inclusion affected rate comparability. Outcome: no relief on tender merits. GST practitioners advising on government tenders should separate tax clarification disputes from Article 226 challenges unless procedural unfairness is clearly shown.
v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
In favour of the assessee
M/s. GMR A Shaha Iron Steels, a registered firm, filed Writ Petition No. 22817 of 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 13 August 2026, against a composite assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 for financial years 2020-21 through 2023-24 under section 73 of the CGST Act. Relying on coordinate bench precedent, the Court held that a single composite order covering multiple tax periods is impermissible because it impairs statutory appeal rights and related reliefs under sections 73 and 75. The impugned order was set aside on this ground alone; other grounds of challenge were left open. Respondents were permitted to initiate fresh period-wise proceedings, subject to conditions including deposit of twenty per cent of disputed tax within six weeks. The outcome favoured the assessee. Not legal advice.