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
Smt. Lalitha S. v. Deputy Commissioner
In favour of the assessee
Smt. Lalitha S. filed Writ Petition No. 24040 of 2026 (LA-RES) before the Karnataka High Court; order 13 August 2026. Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land with an attached structure for highway widening was paid through the Deputy Commissioner, who deducted GST from the award. The petitioner challenged the deduction as ultra vires. The court held compulsory acquisition is not a supply of goods or services under GST; no statutory authority permits charging GST on expropriation compensation. Deduction was invalid and refund directed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Sections 7 and 9 CGST and Article 366 were discussed. CAs advising on acquisition awards should note this limitation on GST levy. Not legal advice. Acquisition authorities must gross up compensation without treating GST as a deductible element unless a specific taxable supply exists.
Kulik Plywood (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Kulik Plywood Pvt. Ltd. succeeded before the Calcutta High Court (WPA No. 7650 of 2026, 13 August 2026) where the SCN was visible only under “Additional Notice and Orders” on the GST portal without separate intimation under Section 169 CGST, preventing timely response. The Section 107 appeal was dismissed on limitation without merit review. The Court quashed the appellate order and directed admission and merits hearing. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand, consistent with Dutta on portal-only communication and natural justice. 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.
KPIL-JWIL Joint Venture v. State of Bihar
See the decision
KPIL-JWIL Joint Venture, a Munger-registered works contractor, filed a writ before the Patna High Court (CWJC No. 5398 of 2026, decided 13 August 2026) against a deficiency memo in Form GST RFD-03 dated 1 March 2025 proposing rejection of Rs. 1.75 crore refund from its electronic cash ledger under Section 54 read with Rule 90. An earlier refund rejection based on alleged ineligible input tax credit had been set aside on appeal; revenue filed revision and later an appeal before GSTAT. The assessee argued Section 54(11) barred withholding refund during tribunal appeal unless the Commissioner passed a reasoned withholding order after hearing. No such order existed. The court disposed the writ directing the Commissioner to issue show cause, grant personal hearing, and pass a reasoned Section 54(11) order within stipulated timelines.
Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
In favour of the revenue
Kanwal Chaudhary, an Advocate enrolled as an Insolvency Professional, challenged GST treatment before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 9410 of 2021, decided 13 August 2026. The dispute concerned insolvency resolution and receivership services performed after NCLT appointment, as distinct from pure legal representation. The Court held such IP services are not "legal services" for reverse charge under section 9 read with section 11 of the CGST Act. The professional must obtain GST registration, charge tax on forward charge, and issue compliant tax invoices. Services rendered strictly as Advocate continue under reverse charge. IBC section 16 was distinguished where relevant. Revenue prevailed on classification, affecting compliance templates for IPs. This summary is for professional awareness only and is not legal advice.
A 1 Enterprises v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
A 1 Enterprises filed a writ before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 11634/2026, 13 August 2026) impugning a show cause notice and order under Section 73 CGST on the ground that both were served only by uploading on the GST portal, without proof of actual intimation or receipt, and that no reply had been filed in ignorance. The revenue relied on Section 169 on deemed service through the common portal. The court held that portal-only service without acknowledgement or evidence of receipt is insufficient where the assessee denies effective notice, following the approach in Luxmi Traders on meaningful service for proceedings with serious civil consequences. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee was granted opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand to the adjudication stage. The case reinforces that electronic upload alone does not dispense with the revenue's obligation to establish valid service under Section 169 when the taxpayer had no real opportunity to respond.
Venkatasubbaiah C v. Superintendent of Central Tax
In favour of the assessee
Partners operating a battery recycling firm (Karnataka High Court, Criminal Petition 9023 of 2026, 12 August 2026, S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.) sought anticipatory bail amid allegations of fictitious suppliers, bogus ITC and untraceable vendors under Sections 69 and 132 CGST. Revenue argued supplier cancellations proved fraud; petitioners maintained valid registration, documented purchases, and no collusion. Court noted post-supply cancellation of supplier GSTIN without collusion evidence does not automatically deny recipient ITC, especially where recipients cooperated and lacked antecedents. Offences being compoundable with five-year maximum, custodial interrogation was unnecessary at this stage. Anticipatory bail granted on conditions. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Highlights ITC defence themes when supplier compliance fails after transaction. Editorial summary. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Siemens Healthcare (P) Ltd. approached the High Court of Delhi (W.P. (C) No. 16562 of 2024, decided 12 August 2026) to restrain transfer of its audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing within the same commissionerate. The taxpayer cited lack of statutory authority and disruption of audit timelines under Section 65 of the CGST Act. The court treated the transfer as an internal administrative reallocation, not barred by statute, particularly where it followed repeated non-compliance by the petitioner in responding to audit requisitions. Judicial interference at the writ stage was unwarranted; the petitioner could raise jurisdictional and procedural objections before the adjudicating authority in the consequential proceedings. The petition was dismissed in favour of the revenue. Section 5 empowers reallocation of work among officers without invalidating subsequent enforcement.
SGS Export (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax /GST Delhi
In favour of the assessee
SGS Export (P.) Ltd. won before the Delhi High Court (12 August 2026, W.P.(C) No. 12260 of 2025) on the ground that a notice proposing cancellation of registration was only uploaded on the GST portal without proof of receipt, acknowledgement or service through any other mode recognized under the CGST framework. The company learned of cancellation only when its compliance chain broke, and its restoration application was rejected as time-barred. The Court held that mere portal upload did not amount to valid service under Section 29 read with Section 169. The petitioner was entitled to apply for restoration, and that application must be decided on merits without being rejected solely for limitation flowing from defective service. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Clarifies limits of portal upload as service for registration SCNs. Not legal advice.
NCC Ltd. v. Union Territory of J & K
In favour of the assessee
NCC Ltd., engaged in construction, filed WP(C) No. 1935 of 2026 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, decided on 12 August 2026. The Additional Commissioner had blocked the company’s electronic credit ledger under CGST Rule 86A, linked to Section 49, without stating reasons or offering a prior hearing. The revenue argued Rule 86A does not mandate a show-cause. The court disagreed: blocking input tax credit affects substantive rights and carries serious civil consequences, so principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem apply even when the rule is silent on procedure. The order was held arbitrary and set aside. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. For chartered accountants reviewing ITC blocks, the decision underscores that administrative power under Rule 86A must be exercised fairly and transparently. This summary is for professional awareness and is not legal advice.
Winstrol Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, State GST
In favour of the assessee
Winstrol Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. challenged Uttarakhand GST adjudication (WP 3695/2024, 11 August 2026) where the show cause notice was uploaded only on the portal after registration cancellation, without alternate modes under Section 169 or personal hearing under Section 73. The demand included tax, interest and penalty determined ex parte. The court held a cancelled registrant is not obliged to monitor the portal; portal-only service was invalid and failure to grant hearing rendered the adjudication order unsustainable. The order was quashed with liberty to the department to proceed after lawful service. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Combined with Ayaz Traders, Uttarakhand law now clearly rejects post-cancellation portal-only demands absent email, registered post or other prescribed service modes under Section 169.
Gajendra Singh Cont. v. Assistant Commissioner
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
In a contempt-related writ before the Uttarakhand High Court (WP 647/2026, 11 August 2026), Gajendra Singh challenged an adjudication order passed after cancellation of registration, without personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) CGST and with notice served only via portal post-cancellation. The demand related to tax, interest and penalty determined without the petitioner participating. Sections 169, 73 and 75 governed service and hearing. The court quashed the order and directed fresh adjudication after granting proper personal hearing in accordance with law, including valid service where registration no longer required portal monitoring. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The ruling integrates cancelled-registration service law with mandatory personal hearing under Section 75, preventing ex parte demands where both defects coexist and reinforcing Uttarakhand's approach in Winstrol and Ayaz Traders.
Absolute Electrovision (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi East
In favour of the assessee
Absolute Electrovision (P.) Ltd. challenged adjudication under Section 74 CGST before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 6593/2025, 11 August 2026), alleging that the show cause notice was never duly served, depriving it of a chance to reply, and that liability was presumed without valid service. The writ court confined itself to validity of service and limitation, deferring merits of the demand. Section 169 and the principles in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh were applied to assess whether portal or other modes constituted effective service. Where service failed statutory and judicial standards, ex parte adjudication could not stand. The petition was allowed in favour of the assessee. Practitioners should treat this as part of a consistent Delhi High Court line requiring the department to prove more than bare portal upload when disputing receipt. The decision does not adjudicate ITC or fraud merits but restores procedural fairness at the notice stage.
Shakti Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
In favour of the assessee
Shakti Enterprises filed Writ Petition No. 1913 of 2026 (T-RES) before the Karnataka High Court; judgment 10 August 2026. On transition to GST the petitioner carried forward valid CENVAT credit into its electronic credit ledger under Section 140 and later debited that ledger to satisfy the pre-deposit required to pursue an appeal under Section 107. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal, treating the pre-deposit as invalid because it was not paid in cash, relying on CBIC administrative instructions. The High Court held the statute does not restrict pre-deposit to cash when credit in the Section 49 ledger is lawfully available; circulars cannot override statutory credit rights or Rule 142 procedures. The Tribunal’s ground of rejection was quashed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Not legal advice.
Dhingra Glass v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax
In favour of the assessee
Before the Uttarakhand High Court (10 August 2026, Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 280 of 2026), Dhingra Glass challenged cancellation of its GST registration and an appellate dismissal confined to limitation. The assessee offered to file all outstanding returns and pay tax, interest and penalty in full. The issue was whether writ relief could open a path to revocation despite the missed appellate timeline. The Court reasoned that where the appeal failed only on delay and substantive compliance was forthcoming, the statutory scheme for cancellation and restoration under Sections 29 and 30 and Rule 23 should still be accessible. Outcome: decided in favour of the assessee—the petitioner was granted liberty to apply for revocation after compliance, with a direction that the authority decide that application on merits in accordance with law. Key provisions: CGST Sections 29 and 30 and Rule 23. Editorial summary for practitioners; not legal advice.
Zubair Enterprises v. Commissioner CGST and Central Excise
In favour of the assessee
Zubair Enterprises approached the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 18468 of 2025, decided 7 August 2026) seeking de-freezing of bank accounts provisionally attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act. More than one year had elapsed since the attachment order was issued. The court held that provisional attachment ceases by operation of Section 83(2) after the statutory period unless validly extended in accordance with law. Accounts must be released when no fresh valid order exists. The competent authority was directed to record the one-year cap on the file and banks were to de-freeze automatically after expiry. The outcome favoured the assessee, consistent with Delhi High Court practice on Section 83 time limits post Kesari Nandan Mobile. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) filed WPPIL No. 45 of 2026 before the Chhattisgarh High Court; decision 7 August 2026. A private businessman sought public-interest directions for investigation and recovery against named parties for alleged GST evasion under Section 132, relying on documents he supplied. An earlier PIL had been dismissed for want of locus. The court again found no genuine public interest element and dismissed the petition, forfeiting the security deposit. Outcome: in favour of revenue/respondents. Reinforces that tax enforcement PILs require more than private grievance. Summary for professionals; not legal advice. Private parties with tax grievances must use statutory remedies rather than PIL routes absent broader public-law concerns. Courts will not entertain repeat PILs that function as private enforcement tools without broader public impact.
Rajib Agarwala v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Rajib Agarwala approached the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 2722 of 2024; judgment dated 7 August 2026. He had filed his GST return for financial year 2018–19 on 23 October 2019 and availed input tax credit on purchases reflected therein. The tax authority later denied the credit, treating the return as belated under the pre-amendment reading of Section 16(4). The issue was whether ITC remained available after retrospective insertion of Section 16(5), which allowed credit where returns for a period were filed on or before 30 November 2021. The court held the petitioner’s filing fell within that extended window, so denial was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside; outcome in favour of the assessee. Sections 16 and 39 framed the dispute. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
DOT Truckers Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Faridabad (West) Ward 5 Faridabad
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
DOT Truckers Ltd. approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court (decided 7 August 2026) against GST proceedings where the show cause notice or order-in-original was served only through portal upload, without acknowledgment or reply. The assessee denied effective notice and sought quashing of ex parte liability. Section 169 CGST was central. Relying on Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, the court held such portal-only service insufficient to bind the assessee or start limitation for appeal. Proceedings were restored to the show cause notice stage for a proper reply opportunity. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The decision is another Rohit Kapoor bench application of the Luxmi Traders standard in Haryana, treating unacknowledged electronic upload as non-service until statutory modes or proven receipt exist, without prejudice to the revenue's right to re-adjudicate after valid service.
PR Industries v. Assistant Commissioner ST
In favour of the assessee
PR Industries (Writ Petition No. 22160 of 2026) assailed one composite assessment order covering several tax periods under Section 74. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (6 August 2026, bench of Jayasurya and Sekhar JJ) held composite determination impermissible under GST law, set aside the order, and permitted separate period-wise orders after due opportunity. All consequential recovery was revoked. Outcome favoured the assessee. Adds to the consistent Andhra Pradesh line on de-compositing multi-year DRC-07 orders. Departments re-initiating must issue discrete notices and respect limitation per period. Summary for professional readers; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-08-06, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 22160 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.
H.R. Constructions v. Superintendent of Central Tax
In favour of the assessee
H.R. Constructions filed Writ Petition No. 12234 of 2021 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 6 August 2026, against reversal of input tax credit for financial year 2018-19. Credit was availed in GSTR-3B filed on 20 December 2019 but initially rejected for exceeding the 20 October 2019 deadline under section 16(4) of the CGST Act. Retrospective section 16(5), read with sections 39 and 20 of the IGST Act, extended the permissible availment window to 30 November 2021. The Division Bench held the dealer's claim timely after amendment and set aside the reversal order. Outcome favoured the assessee. Important for legacy FY 2018-19 ITC disputes following Finance Act changes. Chartered accountants should verify GSTR-3B dates against amended limits. Not legal advice.