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
Ind-korosho Exim v. State Tax Officer-2
In favour of the revenue
Ind-korosho Exim challenged a penalty order before the High Court of Madras (WP No. 21615 of 2026, decided 6 July 2026) for alleged non-maintenance of records under Section 122 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that Section 47 prevented penalty once late fee was levied for related defaults. Section 47 deals specifically with belated filing of returns; Section 122 covers multiple compliance failures including non-maintenance of books under Sections 35 and 36. The court found no statutory overlap barring a distinct penalty for record-keeping failures separate from return delays. The impugned order disclosed no jurisdictional or legal infirmity warranting writ interference under Article 226. The petition was dismissed in favour of the State Tax Officer. Practitioners should distinguish return-filing defaults from independent Section 122 breaches.
Bhardwaj Construction v. Union of India
See the decision
M/s. Bhardwaj Construction filed CWJC No. 4763 of 2026 before the Patna High Court, decided 6 July 2026, against a section 73 BGST order disallowing input tax credit as beyond section 16(4) time limits, with recovery enforced years later. The assessee invoked retrospective sections 16(5) and 16(6) via Finance (2) Act 2024 and Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST paragraph 3.5, permitting rectification where no appeal was filed against the demand order. The Court declined writ quashing but granted liberty to file section 148 rectification within one month, with hearing and reasoned order within three months. Writ disposed accordingly. Appropriate route for time-bar ITC disputes post-circular. Not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
Siva Electricals v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
In favour of the assessee
Siva Electricals (Andhra Pradesh High Court, WP 17618 of 2026, 3 July 2026) faced best-judgment assessment under Section 62 for failure to furnish GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B within statutory timelines under Section 39. Subsequently petitioner filed returns and paid tax, interest and late fee, albeit beyond thirty-day window referenced in Section 62 scheme. Revenue sought to pursue recovery under assessment despite compliance. Court applied Section 62(2): once valid returns and tax paid, assessment deemed withdrawn and recovery cannot continue on basis of superseded Section 62 order. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Late compliance preserves relief from best-judgment demand though interest and late fee remain payable. Informational summary. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
SDE Engineers Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee
SDE Engineers Ltd. pursued T.R.E.V.C. No. 52 of 2008 before the Telangana High Court; judgment 3 July 2026 (pre-GST sales tax). The assessee leased tech-park premises with amenities and furniture to IT companies under composite agreements described as permission to use without transfer of possession or exclusive control; common facilities were shared. The Commercial Tax Officer treated receipts as taxable transfer of right to use goods. The court held no TRUG occurred; consideration arose from service-style permission to use space and facilities, not a sale of goods under VAT Section 4. Orders annulling tax were restored; outcome for assessee. Article 366 definitions informed analysis. Useful historical precedent for composite lease structuring. Not legal advice. Modern co-working and fitted-office leases may analogise to this permission-to-use analysis when assessing legacy VAT exposure.
Hansraj Gurjar v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Hansraj Gurjar filed a second bail application in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8382 of 2026 before the Rajasthan High Court; order 3 July 2026. He was arrested for allegedly operating fake firms and facilitating GST evasion under Section 132. He sought parity with a co-accused granted bail. The court noted no substantial change in circumstances and that his role was distinct and more serious. Economic offences warrant strict scrutiny under BNSS Section 483; parity alone did not justify release. Second bail application dismissed; outcome aligns with prosecution. Summary for understanding bail standards in Section 132 cases; not legal advice. Accused persons in layered fake-firm schemes should expect courts to scrutinise role, prior bail history and gravity before granting parity.
Susanta Kumar Lenka v. Joint Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal)
In favour of the revenue
Susanta Kumar Lenka (Orissa High Court, WP(C) 16755 of 2026, 2 July 2026) challenged both the original GST adjudication and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) order, alleging non-application of mind at the first appellate stage. With the GST Appellate Tribunal operational and Finance Ministry notification prescribing appeal windows under Section 112 coupled with Section 109 machinery, the High Court declined writ intervention. Factual disputes about whether the appellate authority adequately dealt with submissions were held better suited for tribunal scrutiny following statutory deposit compliance. Continuing the writ would effectively bypass GSTAT’s fact-finding role. Petitioner must pursue prescribed appellate channels. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. The judgment illustrates post-2024 High Court reluctance to entertain writs where GSTAT remedy is available for merit-based grievances against adjudication and first appeal. Informational summary only.
Silver Castle Holidays and Resorts (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Tax and Central Excise Department
In favour of the assessee
Silver Castle Holidays and Resorts (India) (P.) Ltd. filed WP(C) No. 41806 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court; decision 2 July 2026. The Superintendent, Central Tax denied input tax credit for April 2018 through March 2019, citing belated filing of returns under Section 16(4). The company showed that returns for the relevant months were in fact filed within the relaxation period prescribed by Section 16(5). Where the extended deadline applies, denial based only on the original Section 16(4) bar is inconsistent with the amended law. The court set aside the denial and held the assessee entitled to ITC if otherwise eligible on merits. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Section 16 was the focal provision. Summary for CAs tracking post-amendment ITC timelines; not legal advice.
Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. filed a writ before the High Court of Orissa (W.P.(C) No. 17093 of 2025, decided 2 July 2026) challenging recovery and denial of accumulated input tax credit refund following retrospective amendment of Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules. The assessee sought direct high court relief; revenue relied on departmental circulars suggesting no useful appeal lay. Under Sections 54 and 112, the court held the GST Appellate Tribunal could adjudicate facts and law independently and circulars did not render statutory appeal futile. The writ was dismissed with liberty to file appeal before GSTAT. Outcome favoured the revenue on forum selection, without finally deciding refund entitlement on merits. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
Narasus Diary v. Deputy State Tax Officer II
See the decision
M/s Narasus Diary (Madras High Court, WP 21857 of 2026, 2 July 2026, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.) challenged Section 62 best-judgment assessment (Form GST ASMT-13 / DRC-07 dated 20 October 2022) for June 2022 following registration cancellation under Section 29 for non-filing of GSTR-3B. Petitioner explained delayed approach because registration was cancelled on 15 March 2023 before awareness of order. Critically, belated GSTR-3B for June 2022 disclosed tax paid exceeding Section 62 determination. Government counsel acknowledged return data. Court held reassessment necessary in interest of justice; impugned order set aside and remanded to Deputy State Tax Officer II, Salem, to pass fresh order within three months after hearing. Outcome: effectively in assessee’s favour; matter remanded. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
Alder Crafts v. State of Himachal Pradesh
In favour of the assessee
Alder Crafts challenged GST proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (CWP 15378/2025, 2 July 2026) after a show cause notice appeared only under the GST portal tab "Additional Notices" rather than "Notices and Orders." Ex parte adjudication and recovery followed. The petitioner relied on Sections 169, 75 and 79 CGST. The Division Bench held there was no valid service on the tab where assessees ordinarily expect primary communications, rendering the subsequent ex parte order and recovery notice unsustainable. All impugned proceedings were quashed with liberty to the revenue to issue a fresh notice through valid modes and tabs. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The judgment adds to High Court jurisprudence distinguishing main portal notices from ancillary tabs, emphasizing that mis-tabbed uploads frustrate natural justice and cannot trigger coercive recovery or final liability.
Santu Das v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & C. EX, Chandannagore Division
In favour of the assessee
Santu Das filed proceedings before the Calcutta High Court (decision 1 July 2026) against the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Chandannagore Division. Input tax credit for 2018–19 was denied on the sole ground that returns were filed after the original deadline in Section 16(4). Parliament later amended the CGST Act to insert Section 16(5), retrospectively relaxing the time limit so that ITC could be taken where returns were filed by 30 November 2021. The petitioner’s returns met that extended cut-off. The court held the department could not ignore the amendment and reject credit purely for delay. The impugned order was set aside; outcome in favour of the assessee. Sections 16, 73 and Rule 142 were engaged. This summary is for professional reference only and is not legal advice.
Clear Secured Service (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Clear Secured Service (P.) Ltd. (Madras High Court, WP 23402 of 2026, 1 July 2026, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.) had input tax credit reversed following Section 73 show cause tied to supplier whose registration was later cancelled. Assessee produced bank statements, tax invoices, e-way bills, ledgers and GSTR-2A/2B reconciliations under Section 16 eligibility principles. Adjudicating authority reversed ITC solely due to supplier cancellation without evaluating documentary proof or granting opportunity to adduce further evidence (Sections 74 and 75 procedural fairness). Order unsustainable; set aside with direction for fresh adjudication considering entire record. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Recipient ITC defences require merit review beyond supplier status changes. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Singapore Airlines Ltd. approached the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2702 of 2026, decided on 29 June 2026, to challenge IGST demands framed on Computer Reservation System (CRS) services. The revenue treated the airline as the recipient liable under the CGST Act, including proceedings under section 74. The airline contended it neither received the services in question nor paid consideration, so the prior issue was whether it was a "recipient" at all—a question going to jurisdiction rather than mere tax quantification. The Court held the writ petition maintainable despite availability of a statutory appeal, because the dispute touched the competence of the adjudicating authority and warranted deeper examination of sections 5 and 6 read with section 74. The outcome at this stage favoured the assessee on maintainability, leaving substantive liability to be determined in appropriate proceedings. This editorial summary is for professional awareness among chartered accountants and is not legal advice.
Fives Call - KCP Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Fives Call-KCP Ltd. filed before the Madras High Court (WP 30288/2023, 29 June 2026) against rejection of IGST refund on zero-rated exports. The department relied on Board Circular No. 37/2018, which the court noted was struck down as inconsistent with IGST Sections 16 and 20 and CGST Rule 96. Rejection without examining the claim under governing statute and rules was unsustainable. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication on merits under proper legal standards, including verification of shipping bills and refund application. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. Exporters should cite this when refunds are denied solely on circular grounds after judicial invalidation of restrictive CBIC guidance, ensuring adjudicators apply Section 16 and Rule 96 rather than obsolete circular tests.
State of Karnataka v. Yogisha R
In favour of the revenue
In Writ Appeal No. 1951 of 2025, the Karnataka High Court decided on 25 June 2026 whether writ courts may direct GST authorities to reimburse tax on state works contracts. Contractor Yogisha R had sought directions against the department of finance and tax officers. The Court reaffirmed that GST officers cannot be compelled to reimburse incremental tax; any pass-through claim arises only under the works contract with the government employer. Section 9 of the CGST Act governs levy, assessment, and recovery independently of tender language. Proper writ relief is to direct the employer department to consider representations for contractual reimbursement, not to bind GST administration. Appeal favoured the revenue on separation of remedies. This summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
SKM Infraventure (P.) Ltd. v. CT & GST Office
In favour of the revenue
SKM Infraventure (P.) Ltd. challenged Section 74 CGST proceedings before the Orissa High Court (WP(C) 7800/2026, 25 June 2026), alleging non-service of notices uploaded on the GST portal and denial of fair adjudication on fraud allegations. The department defended service through the common portal under Section 169 and produced portal history. The court examined records showing assessee participation in the proceedings and found claims of ignorance lacked credibility. Portal service was upheld as valid in these facts. The writ petition was dismissed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Unlike Luxmi Traders fact patterns, Orissa distinguishes cases where portal records demonstrate actual engagement, allowing Section 74 adjudication to stand when service is effectively acknowledged by conduct rather than bare denial in writ proceedings.
Rashmi Agency v. Deputy Commissioner CT & GST
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Rashmi Agency petitioned the High Court of Orissa (W.P.(C) No. 17470 of 2026, decided 25 June 2026) for refund of GST amount paid under protest after securing appellate relief in related proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner denied refund citing potential department appeal or unexpired limitation despite no pending proceeding or Commissioner withholding order in RFD-07 Part A at the relevant date. Under Sections 54 and 112 read with Rule 92, the court held this reasoning unlawful as a basis to withhold amounts already adjudicated in the assessee's favour. The denial was set aside and the matter remanded for refund processing. Outcome favoured the assessee. Refund follow-up after appellate success cannot rest on speculative future appeals alone. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
Prafulla Kumar Mohanty v. Additional Commissioner, CT & GST (Appeal)
In favour of the revenue
Prafulla Kumar Mohanty (Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) 11764 of 2026, 25 June 2026) initially sought writ relief when an adjudication order under Section 74 of the CGST Act was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that no functional GST Appellate Tribunal existed. Subsequent central notification constituted the GSTAT and extended appeal timelines under Section 112 read with Section 109, activating the full appellate ladder including tribunal deposit norms. The court held that once an efficacious statutory remedy exists, Article 226 writs should not short-circuit the hierarchy except in rare cases of demonstrated futility or jurisdictional nullity—neither shown here. Petitioner was directed to file appeal before GSTAT within notified periods and comply with pre-deposit requirements under Section 112 rather than continue writ proceedings. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Chartered accountants advising clients post-GSTAT constitution should map Section 107 first appeal and Section 112 tribunal routes. Not legal advice.
Ayiswarya Polymers v. Assistant commissioner of GST and Central Excise
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Ayiswarya Polymers filed WP No. 22814 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; order 25 June 2026 on Section 128A waiver. The assessee discharged the entire tax demand within the scheme timeline but mistakenly remitted a portion under the IGST head although no IGST liability existed on the notice. The department rejected waiver of interest and penalty solely for wrong head allocation despite full monetary compliance. The court held that substantial compliance with the demand should not be defeated by a clerical misclassification of payment head, and remanded the matter with opportunity to rectify head-wise payment. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. Sections 128A, 73 and 77 were cited. CAs should verify payment heads under amnesty. Not legal advice.
A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. challenged overlapping demands for the same tax period before the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 22309 of 2024, decided 25 June 2026. The assessee had filed GSTR-3B by 30 November 2021. Retrospective insertion of section 16(5) through Finance legislation extended and regularized input tax credit availment timelines for specified cases from 1 July 2017. The Court held a subsequent section 73 demand was unsustainable given that benefit and quashed the later order, remanding the original order-in-original for re-adjudication with verified return dates under sections 16 and 73. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Chartered accountants should map client facts to post-2024 section 16 amendments. Not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.