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
Subhendu Dutta v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Subhendu Dutta obtained conditional relief from the Calcutta High Court (24 July 2026, WPA No. 1144 of 2026) where GST registration was cancelled solely for six consecutive months of non-filing of returns, without allegation of fake invoice or evasion. The petitioner explained delay in approaching the Court due to attempts at departmental resolution. Under Sections 29 and 30, the Court held cancellation could be set aside if the petitioner filed all pending returns and paid tax, interest, fine, penalty and late fees within six weeks from the order, failing which the writ relief would not endure. Outcome: in favour of the assessee on compliance. Illustrates writ courts balancing past default with belated but genuine compliance undertakings rather than leaving taxpayers permanently deregistered. Not legal advice.
Ratul Talukdar v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Ratul Talukdar filed MAT No. 31 of 2026 before the Calcutta High Court, decided 24 July 2026, arising from detention and proposed disposal of perishable goods under section 129 of the CGST Act read with Rule 144A of the CGST Rules. The claimant sought release as owner of the seized consignment but could not establish ownership to the Court's satisfaction under the primary owner-release route. The bench held alternate statutory mechanisms for release remained available and that forcing auction participation without respecting those routes was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee on procedural grounds, leaving substantive tax and ownership disputes for appropriate adjudication. The decision assists practitioners advising transporters and claimants in detention scenarios. This summary is not legal advice.
Snowline Travel Ventures LLP v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the assessee
Snowline Travel Ventures LLP obtained quashing from the Uttarakhand High Court (23 July 2026, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 593 of 2026) of a show-cause notice and cancellation order that rested solely on the assessee having filed NIL returns for several consecutive months, without alleging fake registration, non-operation, fraud or any other ground listed under Section 29(2). The firm contended that NIL return filing reflects nil outward supplies and cannot by itself trigger cancellation. The Court agreed that Section 29(2) and Rule 21 do not permit cancellation for NIL returns alone absent an independent statutory breach. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Registration proceedings were invalidated and the department must act only on grounds recognized by law after proper notice. Relevant for travel and service firms filing NIL GSTR-3B. Not legal advice.
SKG Metal Trading v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the revenue
SKG Metal Trading filed a writ before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 3895 of 2026, decided 23 July 2026, impugning an ex parte order confirming penalty for wrongful input tax credit. The assessee alleged non-service of the show cause notice and asserted that business had ceased with a registration cancellation application pending. The revenue disputed both service of notice and whether registration still subsisted, creating contested facts. Applying Article 226 principles and provisions including sections 74 and 169 of the CGST Act, the Court held that where such factual disputes exist, extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy; the assessee must pursue the statutory appellate channel. For limitation purposes, the period during which the writ remained pending was directed to be excluded from computing time to file appeal. The decision favoured the revenue on maintainability. This summary is not legal advice.
Mohd Hazzak Lohar v. Commissioner State Tax
In favour of the assessee
Mohd Hazzak Lohar approached the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (WP(C) No. 2434 of 2025, decided 23 July 2026) against a Section 129 penalty on goods in transit. Goods were intercepted and a show cause notice under Section 129(3) was issued, but the final penalty order was passed beyond the mandatory seven-day period measured from detention. Relying on Section 129 read with Section 169, the court reiterated that strict statutory timelines are mandatory and not directory. Delay beyond the permitted window rendered the penalty order invalid in law. The impugned order was quashed and the outcome favoured the assessee, consistent with parallel jurisprudence on Section 129 time limits in the same High Court including Danish Hassan. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
J M D News & Advertisers v. State of Uttarakhand
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
J M D News & Advertisers (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 54 of 2025) obtained quashing and remand from the High Court of Uttarakhand on 23 July 2026. The assessee had filed a manual reply to a show cause notice within time under Sections 73 and 75, but the adjudicating authority passed an order without considering it. The department’s objection to non-electronic filing and the assessee’s absence on a hearing date did not justify ignoring the reply. The court held a gross violation of natural justice vitiated the order. Fresh adjudication must consider the reply on merits. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Highlights that substantive compliance with reply timelines matters more than format alone where replies are accepted in practice. Not legal advice.
Ayaz Traders v. Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Ayaz Traders challenged adjudication before the Uttarakhand High Court (WP 86/2025, 23 July 2026) after its GST registration was cancelled and a show cause notice and order were served only by portal upload under Sections 169 and 73. The assessee contended it was no longer obliged to monitor the portal. The court agreed that exclusive portal service after cancellation is invalid because a non-registrant lacks the statutory duty to track the common portal for new demands. Adjudication and appellate orders were quashed; the revenue may proceed afresh after valid service of the show cause notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. This joins Uttarakhand authority requiring alternate modes under Section 169 when registration stands cancelled, protecting taxpayers from silent ex parte liability.
Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana
In favour of the assessee
Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 15601/2026, 23 July 2026) against ex parte orders and rectification orders served solely by upload on the GST Common Portal. The society cited illiteracy and lack of knowledge of portal monitoring. Sections 169 and 146 CGST and Rule 142 were considered. The court held that mere portal upload is insufficient for valid service affecting limitation where serious civil consequences attach, and that retrospective legal changes did not validate defective service in the facts before it. Portal-only communication did not bind the assessee for limitation or finality purposes. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The decision aligns with Luxmi Traders principles and cautions revenue against assuming universal digital literacy or continuous portal access, particularly for cooperative and smaller taxpayers.
v. Superintendent Central GST and CX
In favour of the assessee
M/s. J.S. Enterprisers, through legal heir Jyoti Ranjan Mohapatra, challenged section 73 proceedings before the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No.13452 of 2026, decided 22 July 2026. Show cause notices and an order-in-original were issued and passed in the name of deceased proprietor Manoranjan Mohapatra despite departmental knowledge of his death and approved non-core amendments to registration showing the legal heir. The Court held adjudication against a dead person is non est and without jurisdiction; section 93 of the CGST Act contemplates liability proceedings against legal representatives, not determination solely in the deceased's name. Participation by a representative did not cure the defect. All impugned SCNs and orders were quashed with liberty to issue fresh notice to the legal heir. Outcome favoured the assessee. Not legal advice.
Shiv Shakti Trading Co. v. State of Haryana
In favour of the assessee
Shiv Shakti Trading Co. and allied petitioners filed consolidated writs before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 22 July 2026. The revenue had initiated proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST, PGST and HGST Acts to recover amounts said to represent input tax or credit wrongly availed under the erstwhile Haryana VAT Act before GST. The petitioners contended that pre-GST VAT credits and related disputes fall outside the GST determination and recovery provisions. The court agreed: Sections 73 and 74 address GST-era liabilities, not legacy VAT credits governed by transition rules including Section 140. Proceedings lacked jurisdiction and could not be sustained. Outcome across the batch of petitions: in favour of the assessees. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
B. Enterprise v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
B. Enterprise filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 1079/2026, 22 July 2026) impugning ex parte adjudication under Section 73 CGST. Pre-SCN communications, the show cause notice, reminders and the order appeared only under "Additional notices and orders," not the main Notices/Orders tab, and a personal hearing was scheduled before the reply period expired. Section 169 service and Section 75 hearing requirements were invoked. The court found communication legally inadequate and denial of an effective hearing a violation of natural justice. The ex parte order was set aside with direction to pass a fresh order after affording a proper hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. The judgment combines tab-placement defects with premature hearing dates as independent grounds to vitiate GST adjudication.
Cvent India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST
See the decision
Cvent India (P.) Ltd., an IT and IT-enabled services provider, filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 22461/2023, 21 July 2026) against rejection of refund of unutilized input tax credit for an intervening period while refunds for earlier and later periods were allowed when it was treated as an exporter. IGST Sections 2, 13 and 16 and CGST Section 54 framed place-of-supply and refund issues. The department reclassified the petitioner as intermediary for the disputed period without material distinction in services rendered. The court found that action illegal and arbitrary, set aside the appellate order and restored equitable refund treatment. Outcome favoured the assessee on merits of classification consistency. Export-oriented IT companies should ensure uniform characterization across periods to avoid selective intermediary denial of Section 54 refunds.
B. Enterprise v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
B. Enterprise (Calcutta High Court, WPA 1078 of 2026, 21 July 2026, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) faced show cause proposing input tax credit reversal for portal-flagged mismatches during relevant period. Notice lacked hearing details and appeared under ‘Additional notices and orders’ tab rather than primary notice channel, leading to ex parte order under Sections 73 and 75. Court held deficient notice and absent hearing breached natural justice, vitiating ex parte confirmation. Impugned order set aside; adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate after proper notice specifying hearing date, time and venue. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Emphasizes monitoring all portal tabs and insisting on Section 75(4) compliance. Informational summary. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
Modern Engineers and Contractors v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner ST
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Modern Engineers and Contractors (Andhra Pradesh High Court, WP 19677 of 2026, 20 July 2026) challenged summary assessment simultaneously deficient in assessing officer signature and Document Identification Number. Court held twin defects fatal under Sections 160 and 169—neither curative section nor deemed service via portal uploads converts defective draft into binding order. Invalidity was inherent, warranting quashing without merits inquiry into underlying tax computation. Assessee entitled to fresh assessment after compliant notice, DIN generation, signature, and opportunity of hearing before Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST). Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Demonstrates cumulative procedural failures may short-circuit demand even where substantive liability debated. Informational for CAs. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
Umagaurav (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar
In favour of the revenue
Umagaurav (P.) Ltd. challenged ex parte GST demand before the Patna High Court (CWJC 4914/2026, 17 July 2026), alleging non-service and denial of hearing. The department showed show cause notices and reminders through portal and registered email with specific input tax credit mismatch figures under Sections 73, 75, 79 and 107 CGST and Rule 142. The petitioner neither categorically denied email receipt nor disclosed correct GSTR-2A ITC to rebut the mismatch. Article 226 scope was noted: writ courts do not rehear merits when procedural objections are implausible. Bare allegations lacked credibility against departmental records evidencing participation. The writ failed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Bihar assessees cannot rely on generic non-service pleas where email and portal trails plus undisputed ITC discrepancies show effective engagement, contrasting Subhash Kumar Sah where no such record existed.
Radhika Furniture @ Radha Devi v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the revenue
Radhika Furniture @ Radha Devi and another assessee sought condonation of delay beyond GST appeal periods before the Uttarakhand High Court (Writ Petition Nos. 716 of 2024 and 86 of 2025, 17 July 2026), invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 29(2). The Court held CGST is a special fiscal statute with its own limitation and restricted condonation under Section 107, excluding Section 5 by necessary implication. Appeals beyond the prescribed period could not be entertained. Outcome favoured revenue. GST practitioners cannot rely on general Limitation Act Section 5 for late Section 107 appeals in this jurisdiction. 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.
North East Petrochemicals v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
North East Petrochemicals challenged consolidated show cause notice and a single order covering multiple financial years before the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 2884 of 2026, 17 July 2026). Under Sections 73 and 107, Justice Devashis Barua held issuance of consolidated notice and order was within the proper officer’s jurisdiction and authority; competence could not be assailed on that ground alone. Merits were left open for statutory appeal. Outcome favoured the revenue on the jurisdictional point. This Gauhati view differs from several sister High Courts that quash composite orders in Section 73 matters. Practitioners must weigh forum-specific precedent when advising on multi-year notices. Informational summary only; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-17, High Court of Gauhati recorded in favour of the revenue in WP(C) NO. 2884 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.107. 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.
Munna Chaudhary v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Munna Chaudhary, a works contractor, succeeded in the Patna High Court (17 July 2026, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4593 of 2026) against cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns without affording personal hearing, and against subsequent rejection of revocation where the SCN lacked officer identity and mandatory Document Identification Number. The petitioner argued that cancellation and rejection orders were passed in violation of audi alteram partem and centralised communication norms. Under Section 29, Rule 22, Section 30, Section 160 and Rule 23, hearing and proper notice forms are mandatory before registration is cancelled or restoration is denied; appellate orders that overlooked these defects suffered jurisdictional error. Impugned orders were set aside and registration directed restored subject to lawful compliance by the assessee. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Highlights compliance with natural justice and DIN requirements in registration proceedings. Not legal advice.
BKR Services (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
BKR Services (P) Ltd. challenged garnishee recovery before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 21878 of 2026, decided 17 July 2026). Form GST DRC-13 garnishee notices under Section 79 read with Rule 145 targeted the private limited company for GST dues of a deceased person's proprietary concern, treating them as one liability pool. Adjudication had also failed to consider post-death liability under Sections 73 and 93. The court quashed DRC-13 notices, related recovery orders, and DRC-07 demand summaries, restoring proceedings for fresh decision on whether the company or its assets were legally liable for the deceased's dues. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Corporate personality and estate liability must be adjudicated separately. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
Subhash Kumar Sah v. Commissioner, CGST and CX
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Subhash Kumar Sah filed before the Patna High Court (CWJC 3599/2026, 16 July 2026) against cancellation of GST registration based solely on uploading a show cause notice on the portal, without email, registered post or personal hearing. The assessee contended non-compliance with Section 29 read with Rule 22 for suspension and cancellation. Sections 169 and 29 CGST and Rule 22 were invoked. The Division Bench held portal upload alone insufficient for valid service; personal service by prescribed modes and hearing were required before cancellation. The cancellation order was set aside with direction to re-issue show cause notice, afford hearing and pass a reasoned decision. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. Registration cancellation cases in Bihar must comply with multi-mode service expectations beyond silent portal posting.