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
Shub Conductors LLP v. Joint Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi East Delhi
In favour of the revenue
Shub Conductors LLP (W.P. (C) No. 4126 of 2025) sought writ relief against CGST show cause notice issued before SGST action on overlapping periods, citing Section 6(2)(b) bar on parallel proceedings. The High Court of Delhi on 5 August 2026 (Sections 6, 67, 74; Articles 226 and 227) held the bar was not attracted on the facts and jurisdictional objection could not bypass statutory appeal under Section 107. Writ interference was unwarranted; outcome favoured the revenue. Intelligence-driven dual notices require careful analysis of which authority leads and whether Section 6 actually prohibits sequential or overlapping investigation. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-08-05, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P. (C) NO. 4126 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.6, CGST S.74, CGST S.67. 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.
Kumar Manish (Corpus) v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Kumar Manish filed habeas corpus (Allahabad High Court, HCWP 913 of 2026, 5 August 2026, Siddharth and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.) challenging detention following arrest in a CGST input tax credit fraud investigation under Sections 69 and 132. Petitioner emphasized that maximum punishment may extend only up to five years, suggesting arrest should be rare. Respondents demonstrated credible material and recorded reasons per statutory requirements showing arrest necessary to secure effective investigation and prevent continuation of offences or tampering with evidence. The court distinguished bail-stage assessments from habeas scrutiny of initial arrest validity, upholding custody where reasons were contemporaneously documented. Writ dismissed; detention affirmed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Reinforces that five-year cap under Section 132 does not automatically bar arrest when Section 69 conditions are met. Informational summary.
Jubilant Avenues (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Tax
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Jubilant Avenues (P.) Ltd. assailed a single composite adjudication order under Section 74 for multiple financial years alleging fraud. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 21486 of 2026, 5 August 2026) held that even in Section 74 proceedings each tax period requires separate adjudication; one composite order could not confirm liability across years. The impugned order was set aside with liberty to pass period-wise orders after due notice and hearing. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Aligns with Andhra Pradesh jurisprudence on invalid clubbing of assessment periods. Departments must structure fraud proceedings year-by-year to survive judicial scrutiny. Informational summary for professionals; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-08-05, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WRIT PETITION NO. 21486 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.
Goel Metal v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
M/s Goel Metal filed a writ before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 10996/2026, decided 5 August 2026) following search and seizure under Section 67 of the CGST Act and a subsequent show cause notice alleging fraudulent input tax credit and use of fake firms. The petitioner argued that goods seized under Section 67(2) could be released only after determination of liability under Section 74A(9), that the phrase "on a provisional basis" in Section 67(6) was ultra vires where tax, interest and penalty were already paid, and that confiscation or penalty proceedings after Section 74A(9) closure lacked jurisdiction. The Division Bench explained that Section 67 addresses inspection, search, seizure and provisional release on bond or security, while Section 74A governs determination of unpaid, short-paid or erroneously refunded tax and wrongly availed ITC, and the provisions operate in separate fields. Provisional release under Section 67(6) is not contingent on Section 74A(9). The constitutional challenge was not sustained without proof of constitutional breach. On the show cause notice, the court permitted the petitioner to file a reply if advised. The petition was disposed of with observations that favoured the revenue's reading of the statute.
City Lights and Equipments v. State of Meghalaya
In favour of the revenue
City Lights and Equipments, a firm, invoked the Meghalaya High Court (WP(C) 264 of 2024, 4 August 2026) against demand and assessment orders, alleging bias and natural justice violations because inspection, assessment based on seized estimates, residuary rate application, and reconciliation issues involved overlapping officer roles. Petitioner also raised proper-officer jurisdiction. The court noted an effective remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112, with first appeal under Section 107 already in the chain. No actual bias or clear jurisdictional illegality was demonstrated on writ record; disputed factual questions on seized data and reconciliation were held fit for tribunal evaluation under Article 226’s restraint. The writ was dismissed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue; assessee to pursue GSTAT appeal.
Manoj Bansal v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence
In favour of the assessee
Manoj Bansal filed CRM-M No. 45265 of 2025 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court; judgment 1 August 2026. A complaint under Section 132 alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit by M/s NIPL but arraigned only Bansal as director, not the company. Section 137 CGST makes officers liable only when the company, as registered person, commits an offence and is prosecuted. Vicarious prosecution cannot proceed if the principal accused company is absent from the charge sheet. The court quashed the complaint and all consequential proceedings. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Important for directors facing standalone prosecution. Not legal advice. Compliance teams should ensure company name appears on complaints before director liability is pursued under Section 137. The ruling protects directors from standalone criminal exposure when prosecution omits the registered entity.
Vasanta Resorts and Spa (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Vasanta Resorts and Spa (P.) Ltd. filed CWP No. 12966 of 2026 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court; order 31 July 2026. The dispute concerned input tax credit blocked or denied following retrospective amendment to Section 17(5)(d), which restricts credit on construction of immovable property. The assessee filed a belated appeal; the Appellate Authority dismissed it as time-barred and declined condonation beyond the statutory limit in Section 107. The High Court set aside the dismissal on delay grounds alone and remanded the appeal for adjudication on merits of the Section 17(5)(d) challenge. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. CAs should separate limitation issues from substantive ITC blocking under Section 17. Not legal advice. Merits will now include whether hospitality construction qualifies for any exception under the amended Section 17(5)(d) language.
Sagar Ghosh v. Deputy Commissioner, State GST
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Sagar Ghosh (W.P.A. No. 1197 of 2026) raised pure jurisdictional questions—competence and cross-empowerment—against adjudication, appellate, and recovery steps under Section 74, without disputed facts. The High Court of Calcutta on 31 July 2026 held the writ maintainable despite an alternate remedy where only legal issues were involved, and remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide jurisdiction first. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Useful precedent when challenging officer designation or dual jurisdiction at the threshold rather than on ITC merits. Jurisdictional defects may be agitated in writ when fact-finding is unnecessary. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-31, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in W.P.A. NO. 1197 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.
Gaurav Jain v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone
In favour of the assessee
Gaurav Jain petitioned the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 8414 of 2026, 31 July 2026) after appellate authorities demanded 10% pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals linked to Section 122(1A) SCNs issued before the substituted proviso to Section 107(6) CGST and Rule 108. The Court held the appeal right vested at SCN issuance and pre-amended law governed, so the 10% pre-deposit requirement did not apply to those penalty appeals. Outcome favoured the assessee. Aligns with Delhi jurisprudence on non-retroactive pre-deposit for legacy penalty notices. 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.
Er. Roland S. v. Government of Karnataka
In favour of the assessee
Er. Roland S., a Class-I civil contractor, filed before the Karnataka High Court (WP 105716/2026, 30 July 2026) seeking reimbursement of differential GST paid on government works awarded before GST replaced VAT. Sections 142 and 9 CGST and transition principles applied. Having executed state contracts and remitted incremental tax after transition, the petitioner acquired a legal right to reimbursement of differential liability attributable to GST introduction, with the State as recipient of works contract services bound by earlier rulings. The court directed verification and reimbursement of the differential confined to incremental GST transition impact, not unrelated tax increases. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Pre-GST government contractors in Karnataka may rely on this for recovery of transition-related tax from departments subject to proof of payment and contract terms.
Executive Engineer v. M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects (P.) Ltd
See the decision
The Executive Engineer filed a writ appeal before the Karnataka High Court (WA 1947/2025, 29 July 2026) concerning withholding of differential GST on municipal works executed under the earlier VAT and service tax regime. Sections 142 and 9 CGST and Article 226 were raised. M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects had invoked arbitration under the contract, covering the reimbursement claim for transition tax. The Division Bench held the writ under Article 226 not maintainable where an arbitration clause exists and arbitral proceedings are pending, without adjudicating reimbursement merits on the writ side. Outcome: procedural dismissal of writ route. Contractors must pursue contractual arbitration rather than parallel writs when arbitration already covers GST differential claims, though Er. Roland S. remains relevant where no arbitration bar exists.
Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd. (Gauhati High Court, 29 July 2026, Devashis Baruah, J.) impugned Assam GST order dated 30 April 2024 imposing tax, interest and penalty for FY 2018-19 under Sections 73 and 75. Petitioner demonstrated no State notification extended limitation under Section 168A for that financial year, unlike centrally notified extensions. Statutory period for passing order expired 31 December 2023; April 2024 order time-barred and void. Court set aside demand. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Practitioners must verify State-specific Section 168A notifications when defending aged SCNs, not only central COVID-era extensions, before conceding liability. 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.
Ankit Goyal v. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence
In favour of the assessee
Ankit Goyal and connected accused (Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M Nos. 12200 and 12204 of 2026, 29 July 2026, Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.) faced prosecution for allegedly creating twenty-six fake firms issuing bogus invoices to circulate fraudulent input tax credit, causing substantial exchequer loss (IGST Section 20, CGST Section 132, BNSS Section 528). After more than seven months in judicial custody, the case rested primarily on documentary and electronic material already seized; threats of evidence destruction or absconding were not substantiated, and petitioners lacked criminal antecedents. The court held further incarceration disproportionate where investigation could proceed on bail with conditions. Regular bail was granted with stringent terms safeguarding investigation integrity. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Illustrates courts weighing duration of custody and evidence nature in large ITC fraud prosecutions. Editorial summary for CAs.
Shanaya Enterprises v. State of Punjab
In favour of the assessee
Shanaya Enterprises filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 23234/2026, 28 July 2026) disputing validity of GST notice and order-in-original served only by portal upload without acknowledgment or reply. The petitioner learned of the demand only when coercive steps were threatened, having never filed a reply. Section 169 CGST applied. The court followed Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and held mere upload did not constitute valid service. Impugned proceedings were set aside or restored for response as prayed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The judgment is a straightforward application of the Chandigarh High Court standard across Punjab, reinforcing that assessees may contest demands when the department cannot prove effective electronic intimation beyond passive portal posting.
J K Cement Works v. Commissioner CGST
In favour of the assessee
J K Cement Works, a cement manufacturer, petitioned the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (CWP No. 29456 of 2025, decided 28 July 2026) for release of GST refund sanctioned by order in 2022 but withheld by the department pending its belated appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal, which remained unlisted. Under Sections 54 and 119 of the CGST Act, the court found the petitioner could not be regarded as a fly-by-night operator given its established manufacturing operations. Release of the refund amount was directed subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to redeposit the sum with interest if the departmental appeal ultimately succeeded. The outcome favoured the assessee while protecting revenue interest during appellate uncertainty. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
Incompressible Fluid Control System v. Assistant Commissioner
In favour of the assessee
Incompressible Fluid Control System filed before the Madras High Court; decision 28 July 2026. The assessee sought waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A where show-cause proceedings under Section 73 arose from belated filing of GSTR-3B and self-assessed tax shortfalls. Revenue argued Section 75(12)’s non obstante clause permitted direct recovery under Section 79, excluding such cases from amnesty. The court held that once liability is determined under Section 73, Section 128A remains available; Section 75(12) does not oust the waiver scheme for those proceedings. Rules 164 and Section 168 supported procedure. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Useful for mapping amnesty eligibility to the section under which demand is raised. Not legal advice. Belated GSTR-3B filers who face Section 73 notices may therefore explore 128A relief if other scheme conditions are satisfied.
Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi East v. Samiah International Builder (P.) Ltd
In favour of the assessee
The Commissioner of CGST Delhi East filed CEAC No. 5 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court (28 July 2026) against a CESTAT order on service taxability in favour of Samiah International Builder Pvt. Ltd. Under Central Excise Sections 35G and 35L, appeals on such matters lie to the Supreme Court, not the High Court, absent contrary binding precedent. Kshetarpal and Jain JJ held the appeal not maintainable and relegated the Commissioner to the Supreme Court remedy. Outcome favoured the assessee on maintainability. Departmental appeals from CESTAT must follow the correct forum under Section 35L for the subject matter. 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.
United Chem India v. Excise and Taxation Officer
In favour of the assessee
United Chem India filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (27 July 2026) against notice and order-in-original served only by GST portal upload without acknowledgment or reply. The assessee sought quashing of ex parte liability and restoration of appellate rights dismissed as time-barred. Sections 169 and 146 CGST applied. Following Luxmi Traders, electronic uploading alone was insufficient service; ex parte proceedings were restored to the show cause stage for reply, and appeal limitation did not commence from mere upload. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The case mirrors parallel Rohit Kapoor bench rulings in July 2026 reinforcing uniform Punjab-Haryana treatment of unacknowledged portal service and aligning with Gugal Electrical and Shanaya Enterprises on limitation for appeals under Section 107.
Nehkhohao Haokip v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Nehkhohao Haokip and others petitioned the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 3871 of 2026, 27 July 2026) against repatriation from In-Charge Transfer (ICT) postings in the CBIC. The petitioners had been promoted as Executive Assistants and transferred on ICT after the 2015 Recruitment Rules, which provided separate cadres and no provision for absorption. CBIC policy restricted ICT except in limited cases. The issue was whether orders treating ICT as loan postings and directing repatriation were valid. The court upheld the department's position that ICT postings were impermissible under the rules and policy framework. No infirmity was found in the repatriation orders. The writ was dismissed in favour of the Union of India. This summary is for CA reference on service matters touching GST administration, not legal advice.
Gugal Electrical and Engg. Works v. State of Punjab
In favour of the assessee
Gugal Electrical and Engg. Works filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 21363/2025, 27 July 2026) against show cause notice and order-in-original served solely by GST portal upload without acknowledgment or reply. The assessee had filed appeals rejected as time-barred on the assumption that portal posting started limitation. Sections 169 and 146 CGST were read together; Rule 142 was noted. Following Luxmi Traders, portal-only upload did not constitute valid service or trigger appeal limitation; appeals dismissed as time-barred were restored. Retrospective amendments did not salvage invalid service because Rules did not permit the mode used. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Practitioners facing time-barred appeal dismissals on portal-service assumptions should cite this precedent for restoration of appellate rights when receipt was never established and merits may be heard afresh.