Every ruling, in plain sight

M S Enterprises v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax

In favour of the assessee

M S Enterprises approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court (10 July 2026, CWP No. 20679 of 2026) against retrospective cancellation of GST registration from 1 May 2023 when the show-cause notice had not proposed that effective date. The assessee contended that it was never given an opportunity to answer a proposal to cancel registration with effect from a date more than two years before the order. Under Section 29 and Rule 22, cancellation must align with the case made in the SCN; retrospective effect requires explicit proposal, supporting material and reasoning in both notice and order. An officer cannot insert a backdated effective date at the final stage without prior intimation. Citing precedent from this Court and other High Courts, the bench set aside the cancellation order as unsustainable while preserving the department’s liberty to issue a fresh SCN and proceed lawfully if grounds exist. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. For CAs, the case illustrates limits on backdated registration cancellation without notice. Not legal advice.

Venus Infra Projects v. Assistant Commissioner of ST

In favour of the revenue

Venus Infra Projects filed W.P. No. 21371 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; decision 9 July 2026. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled and later revived; it then sought input tax credit while filing pending returns, invoking Section 16(6). The Assistant Commissioner denied credit. The court interpreted Section 16(6) as conditional: revival allows credit only if Section 16(4) did not already bar it on the date of cancellation. Here the assessee was time-barred under Section 16(4) when registration was cancelled, so subsequent revival could not revive lost ITC. Writ dismissed; outcome in favour of revenue. Sections 16, 29, 30 and 39 together govern cancellation and credit. Summary for registration-compliance planning; not legal advice. The decision warns infra contractors that delayed returns before cancellation can permanently foreclose ITC even after registration revival.

Sunil Chauhan Prop of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North

In favour of the revenue

Sunil Chauhan, proprietor of Shree Chem India, challenged adjudication before the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 8412 of 2026, decided 9 July 2026). A show cause notice under Section 74 alleged mis-declaration, undervaluation, and clandestine clearance of agro-chemical products, proposing demand of tax, interest, and multiple penalties including under Section 122. The petitioner argued penalties required separate proceedings from tax adjudication. The court held that the proper officer adjudicating tax liability from the same notice is competent to impose all consequential penalties in one integrated proceeding; Rule 142 does not mandate split adjudications. No jurisdictional error was found. The writ was dismissed in favour of the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North. This editorial summary is not legal advice.

State of Tamil Nadu v. I. Vetrivel

In favour of the revenue

The State of Tamil Nadu filed tax revision petitions in TCR(MD) Nos. 23–30 of 2024 before the Madras High Court; decision 9 July 2026. The dispute concerned purchase tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and TN VAT on sand, gravel and jelly bought from unregistered dealers for use in works contracts. A Constitution Bench precedent supports such levy on goods not previously tax-suffered. The first appellate authority and Tribunal had annulled assessments; the High Court found those orders perverse and restored purchase tax under Section 7-A, holding it operates independently of Section 3-B on transfer of property in works contracts. Outcome: in favour of revenue. Pre-GST but relevant to works-contract material sourcing. Not legal advice. Contractors sourcing aggregates from unregistered quarries in Tamil Nadu remain exposed to purchase tax despite works-contract characterisation debates.

Shyam Traders v. State of West Bengal

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Shyam Traders, Calcutta High Court (WPA 2357 of 2025, 9 July 2026), contested an appellate order under Section 107 that, while dealing with an ex parte adjudication confirming tax, interest and penalty for alleged short payment of outward supplies and excess input tax credit, directed the parties to appear before the Adjudicating Authority for further proceedings instead of deciding within appellate powers. The court held that Section 107 and allied provisions (including Section 161 on appellate procedure) permit the Appellate Authority only to confirm, modify or annul the order under appeal—not to remand for a fresh adjudicatory round as if exercising original jurisdiction. The remand exceeded statutory appellate competence. The impugned appellate order was set aside with direction that the Appellate Authority decide the appeal on merits within the confines of Section 107. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded for proper appellate adjudication.

Sepl Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Sepl Infra (P.) Ltd. challenged before the Karnataka High Court (WP 104931 of 2026, 9 July 2026) the dismissal of its appeal under Section 107 after it belatedly discovered an adjudication order that had not been uploaded in the regular GST portal tab and was not fully served. The assessee had meanwhile complied with the statutory pre-deposit under Sections 78 and 79. The court found that delayed knowledge coupled with deficient portal communication and incomplete service justified writ relief despite limitation arguments. The appellate dismissal was set aside, delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) for a merit-based decision in accordance with Section 107.

Rajat Dalmia v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue

In favour of the assessee

Rajat Dalmia (W.P.A. No. 1031 of 2026) succeeded before the High Court of Calcutta on 9 July 2026 against West Bengal GST proceedings. Form GST DRC-01 omitted date, time, and venue for personal hearing and marked those fields as not applicable, effectively denying hearing under Sections 73 and 75 read with Rule 142. Assessment and demands founded on the defective notice were vitiated and set aside with liberty for fresh proceedings after proper hearing opportunity. Outcome favoured the assessee. Portal-generated DRC-01 templates must not leave hearing slots blank where adverse action is proposed. Procedural rigour protects assessees at the show-cause stage. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-09, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee in W.P.A. NO. 1031 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.75, CGST Rules R.142. 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.

Marginmart Ifosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioncr CGST

In favour of the revenue

Marginmart Ifosystems (P) Ltd. filed an Article 226 writ before the High Court of Delhi (decided 9 July 2026) against penalty proceedings for issuing tax invoices without actual supply and wrongful availment of input tax credit, after investigation found the purported recipient entity non-existent. The company raised jurisdiction and procedural grounds at the threshold. The court noted an effective statutory remedy under Section 107 to challenge the penalty order on merits and on jurisdictional questions, with Section 126 governing mitigating circumstances at adjudication. Writ jurisdiction was not exercised at this stage; the petitioner was directed to pursue appeal, leaving all issues open for the Appellate Authority. The outcome favoured the revenue on maintainability rather than on substantive penalty merits. This editorial summary is not legal advice.

JK Technology v. Deputy State Tax Officer

In favour of the assessee

The Telangana High Court (9 July 2026, Writ Petition No. 21690 of 2026) quashed cancellation of JK Technology’s GST registration where the show-cause notice spoke of fraud but the cancellation order rested on non-furnishing of returns—a ground not specified in the SCN. The writ challenged both the SCN and the cancellation order as procedurally defective. Under Section 29 and Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, grounds must be precise, supported by material, and consistently pursued through notice, reply and final order; the assessee must know the exact case it must meet. Breach of that requirement vitiated the entire cancellation chain because the authority could not rely on a new rationale at the order stage. Registration was restored forthwith; the department retained liberty to issue a fresh SCN on proper grounds with supporting documents and to follow Rule 22 procedure. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The ruling is a reminder that registration proceedings cannot shift rationales between notice and order. Editorial summary for Chartered Accountants; not legal advice.

Sanat Kumar Hazra v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Howrah and Kadamtala Charge

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Sanat Kumar Hazra (WPA No. 27554 of 2025) challenged an ex parte Section 74 order uploaded on the wrong GST portal tab, escaping notice. The High Court of Calcutta on 8 July 2026 set aside the order and granted opportunity to contest the show cause notice subject to deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards disputed tax under Sections 74 and 75. Outcome: assessee favoured with conditional remand. Portal hygiene and assessee vigilance on all tabs matter for timely challenge. Deposit conditions balance revenue protection with restored hearing rights. CAs should monitor DRC-07 publications across portal sections. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-08, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPA NO. 27554 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, 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.

Rajat Bansal v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST)

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Rajat Bansal challenged before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (8 July 2026, CWP No. 11068 of 2025) retrospective cancellation of GST registration from 15 March 2022 by an order dated 17 January 2025, without recording reasons for retrospectivity in either the show-cause notice or the cancellation order. Departmental material indicated that no functioning unit existed at the declared premises for part of the period, but the petitioner contended that backdating still required explicit proposal and reasoning. Under Section 29 and Rules 21 and 22, retrospective effective dates require reasoned adoption and cannot be slipped into the final order silently. The Court set aside the retrospective portion and remanded the matter for a fresh reasoned decision on the appropriate effective date of cancellation; actions taken after 17 January 2025 were left intact. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand. Not legal advice.

Phoenix Medical Syatems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

In favour of the assessee

Phoenix Medical Systems (P.) Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 22371 of 2024) challenged a Section 74 assessment before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 8 July 2026. The adjudicating authority did not consider the assessee’s reply and failed to grant mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) where an adverse DRC-07 was contemplated. The vitiated order and consequential proceedings were quashed. Outcome favoured the assessee. Sections 74 and 107 frame appeal rights after valid adjudication; defective hearing renders the order a nullity at writ stage. Medical device and pharma distributors facing fraud notices should document hearing requests and replies. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-08, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 22371 OF 2024. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, CGST S.75, 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.

P. Venkataramaniah & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner ST

In favour of the assessee

P. Venkataramaniah & Co., a partnership providing works contract services to government departments, challenged a composite assessment spanning multiple tax periods. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 2136 of 2025, 8 July 2026) under Sections 73 and 75 set aside the clubbed order as invalid and granted liberty to initiate separate proceedings through period-wise notices. Outcome favoured the assessee. Continues Andhra Pradesh High Court practice invalidating multi-period DRC-07 orders in standard demand cases. Government contractors should expect year-specific SCNs if department revisits assessments. Informational for CA practice; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-08, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO: 2136 OF 2025. 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.

Friends Alloys v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Friends Alloys filed a writ before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (CWP No. 4997 of 2025, 8 July 2026) challenging an order-in-original and DRC-07 summary instead of filing under Section 107 CGST. Thakur and Sharma JJ held writ was inappropriate where statutory appeal existed under Sections 74 and 107, permitted withdrawal with liberty to appeal within thirty days excluding time spent in writ. Outcome favoured the assessee in obtaining appeal window, not merits. Taxpayers should prefer Section 107; courts may exclude writ period from limitation when redirecting to appellate remedy. 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.

WFB Baird and Company India (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer I

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

WFB Baird and Company India (P.) Ltd. approached the Madras High Court in WP Nos. 24237 and 24239 of 2026, decided 7 July 2026, against a demand raised under section 74 of the CGST Act for alleged excess input tax credit from return mismatches. The show cause notice did not allege fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that without ingredients required for section 74, proceedings must run under section 73, rendering the assessment order unsustainable. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision under the correct section, with liberty to claim applicable statutory reliefs including those under section 128A where relevant. The outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Useful for distinguishing section 73 versus 74 in ITC mismatch cases. Not legal advice.

Shree Ganesh Infra v. State of U.P

In favour of the assessee

Shree Ganesh Infra (Writ Tax No. 1728 of 2025) quashed demand proceedings before the High Court of Allahabad on 7 July 2026. After GST registration cancellation and business discontinuance, show cause notice was served only by upload on the GST portal; Section 169 service mechanics could not oblige a cancelled registrant to monitor the portal. Service breached natural justice under Sections 73, 75, and 169. The demand order fell with the defective notice. Outcome favoured the assessee. Cancelled registrants remain persons under law but portal-only service post-cancellation is risky for department. Alternative service modes may be required. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-07, High Court of Allahabad recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT TAX NO. 1728 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, CGST S.73, CGST S.169. 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.

Mohammed Kamran v. Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence

In favour of the revenue

Mohammed Kamran, a scrap trader, challenged parallel GST investigations before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 38771 of 2025, decided 7 July 2026). State GST had initiated an inquiry into discrepancies in his transactions; during its pendency the Directorate General of GST Intelligence commenced a wider investigation into related supply chains, and the state inquiry was formally transferred to the central authority. The petitioner invoked Section 6 of the CGST Act to argue that dual proceedings were barred. The court examined Sections 6, 69, 132, and 168 and found no identical liability or overlapping adjudication on the same cause of action. The designated central authority was competent to proceed on its own investigative material. Parallel investigation was held permissible. The writ was dismissed in favour of the revenue. This summary is for professional reference on officer jurisdiction, not legal advice.

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling

In favour of the revenue

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. filed Writ Petition No. 192 of 2022 before the Karnataka High Court (7 July 2026) challenging an advance ruling given to another entity on GST classification or rate for metro-related works. Under Sections 101 and 103 CGST, AAR and AAAR rulings bind only the applicant and its jurisdictional officers; Article 226 does not allow third parties to rewrite outcomes. The petitioner lacked locus where its contract with the applicant did not embed specific GST classification or rate terms, so no direct civil consequence arose. The writ was dismissed in favour of revenue’s stand on maintainability. Contracting parties should negotiate explicit tax clauses rather than rely on another’s ruling. 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.

Ashok Parakh v. State of West Bengal

In favour of the assessee

Ashok Parakh filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 2425/2025, 7 July 2026) against ex parte assessment and appellate orders arising after notices and orders were uploaded only under the "Additional Notices/Orders" tab, allegedly due to a GSTN tabulation glitch of which the network was aware. Sections 169 and 73 CGST framed the service dispute. Justice Kausik Chanda held the petitioner could not be saddled with ex parte assessment when communications never appeared in the primary notices section, breaching natural justice. Assessment and appellate orders were set aside with liberty to the revenue to issue fresh notice properly. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The case is significant for West Bengal GST practice where systemic portal categorization errors have repeatedly led courts to quash demands until valid, visible service is effected.

Parsam Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Parsam Traders (Writ Petition No. 2577 of 2023) obtained relief from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati on 6 July 2026. The Assistant Commissioner passed a common assessment order for 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 under CGST and APGST, clubbing periods contrary to established Division Bench precedent. The court set aside the composite and related unsigned orders without merits examination, directed separate notices per period, and required the petitioner to deposit 20% of disputed tax within eight weeks given the 2022 assessment date. Outcome favoured the assessee on procedure. Unsigned orders and composite periods remain fatal flaws in this forum. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-06, the High Court recorded as recorded in the order in the writ petition. Central provisions engaged included 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.