Demands Adjudication case laws
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.
57 rulings
Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
In favour of the revenue
The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 10213 of 2025, judgment dated 29 September 2026) declined to interfere at the show-cause stage in proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Rules 101 and 142. Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd., a medicine distributor, challenged a show cause notice and the appropriation of amounts deposited during audit, alleging coercion, limitation errors, incorrect computation, and lack of jurisdiction. The bench held that statutory adjudication had already commenced and the notice had not finally determined tax liability. Objections—including whether payment was voluntary—were matters for the adjudicating authority after reply and hearing. Premature writ relief was unwarranted. The outcome favoured the revenue; the assessee was left to pursue its defences in the pending adjudication. This summary is for information only and is not legal advice.
Jaiwanti v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Jaiwanti, as legal representative, challenged show cause and penalty proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund claims of a deceased person. The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 7254 of 2025, 25 September 2026) upheld the department’s action under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which permits post-death determination of tax, interest, and penalty to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Investigation and recovery against legal heirs were jurisdictionally valid; Article 14 and related provisions did not assist the petitioner. Outcome favoured the revenue. This contrasts with cases where notices are issued only in the deceased’s name without proper representation procedure. For estate planning and GST compliance, Section 93 mechanics are central. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-25, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P.(C) NO.7254 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.93, CGST S.73, 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.
Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Arup Datta (Calcutta High Court, WPA 17892 of 2026, 24 September 2026, Sumita Das De, J.) challenged demand of tax, interest and penalty under Sections 73 and 75 where show cause notice and ex parte adjudication order were uploaded on GST portal without direct intimation. Petitioner filed reply yet received no personal hearing before order-in-original, violating audi alteram partem embedded in Section 75(4) scheme and fair service expectations under Section 169 context. Court quashed impugned adjudication and directed reconsideration after effective hearing with communicated schedule. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. West Bengal portal-service cases increasingly scrutinize ‘additional notices’ tabs and silent ex parte orders. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Rohit Vij (W.P.(C) No. 13848 of 2021) obtained setting aside and remand from the High Court of Delhi on 22 September 2026. An adverse Form DRC-07 was passed without personal hearing despite Section 75 and Rule 142 requiring hearing on request or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated. The order was unsustainable. The adjudicating authority must pass a fresh decision after effective personal hearing. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Delhi benches consistently police hearing compliance in DRC proceedings. Registered persons should formally request hearings and preserve proof when SCN signals confirmation of demand. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-22, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in W.P.(C) NO. 13848 OF 2021. Central provisions engaged included 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.
Saptagiri Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
In favour of the assessee
Saptagiri Constructions, supplying works contract services to government departments, faced a single composite summary assessment for multiple years. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 26644 of 2026, 21 September 2026) under Section 75 set aside the order as impermissible clubbing and allowed fresh year-wise proceedings with consequential relief revoked. Outcome favoured the assessee. Mirrors sibling Andhra Pradesh judgments on composite orders in works-contract GST assessments. Government vendors should expect separate SCNs if department reopens past periods. Period-specific limitation and hearing apply to each re-initiated year. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-21, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 26644 OF 2026. 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.
GSR Handlooms v. Assistant Commissioner ST
In favour of the assessee
GSR Handlooms, a registered dealer in handloom sarees, challenged a single composite summary assessment order covering multiple tax periods before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 26316 of 2026, 17 September 2026). Under Section 73 of the CGST Act, the Division Bench held that a composite assessment across years is unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the department may initiate separate proceedings for each assessment year. Judgment follows the Andhra Pradesh line on period-specific adjudication in demand matters. Result: in favour of the assessee. For practitioners reviewing DRC-07 orders spanning several FYs, this decision is a further data point within that jurisdiction. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-17, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 26316 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73. 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.
Venspra Impex v. Deputy Commissioner ST
In favour of the assessee
Venspra Impex filed Writ Petition No. 26359 of 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 16 September 2026, against a single composite assessment order under section 74 of the CGST Act covering multiple tax periods in one Form GST DRC-07. Following consistent doctrine of the bench, the Court ruled that each tax period requires distinct notice and adjudication; consolidated assessment is unsustainable and undermines appellate remedies and period-wise limitation analysis. The impugned consolidated order was set aside with liberty to the department to issue separate notices and pass separate orders for each period if so advised. The decision favoured the assessee and aligns with other Andhra Pradesh judgments on multi-period demands. This summary is for professional awareness only and is not legal advice.
Raj Kumar Borthakur v. Joint Commissioner of Revenue
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Raj Kumar Borthakur (WPA No. 464 of 2026) challenged an adjudication order for April 2017 to March 2018 before the High Court of Calcutta on 9 September 2026. The confirmed demand for tax, interest, and penalty exceeded amounts proposed in the show cause notice, which Sections 73 and 75 do not permit without fresh notice on enhanced grounds. The court remanded by treating the impugned order as a new show cause notice and requiring fresh response and adjudication. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Enhanced demands without supplemental SCN remain a common adjudication defect in West Bengal GST practice. CAs should reconcile DRC-01 figures with DRC-07 before advising payment. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-09, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPA NO. 464 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, CGST S.73. 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.
Hanumant Steel Traders v. Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the assessee
Hanumant Steel Traders (WPT Nos. 11, 12 and 15 of 2026) succeeded before the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 9 September 2026 against show cause notices under Section 74 alleging input tax credit through fake invoices. The court found the notices reproduced statutory phrases on fraud or suppression without disclosing foundational facts or adequate reasoning. Such skeletal notices could not sustain coercive action. The notices were quashed with liberty to the department to issue fresh notices conforming to principles of natural justice and Section 74 requirements. Outcome favoured the assessee. The decision underscores that invocation of extended limitation for fraud must be factually substantiated in the notice itself. Summary for CA readers only; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-09, High Court of Chhattisgarh recorded in favour of the assessee in WPT NO. 11, 12 AND 15 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.
Babita Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Babita Sharma (Calcutta High Court, WPA 1633 of 2026, 9 September 2026, Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) received order under Section 73 passed after summary show cause without personal hearing or communicated date, time and venue—contravening Section 75(4) mandatory hearing framework. Court set aside order directing fresh adjudication. Because writ was belated, relief conditioned on deposit of ten per cent of disputed tax as equitable precondition to remand. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded subject to deposit. Shows courts may impose partial pre-deposit even in natural-justice successes when writ delay exists, alongside full rehearing rights. 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.
Sumin Dutta v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Sumin Dutta challenged GST adjudication before the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 17905 of 2026, decided 8 September 2026. A summary show cause notice and subsequent ex parte order were uploaded only under the GST portal's "Additional Notices and Orders" tab without separate intimation, which delayed the assessee's awareness and reply. Personal hearing was not granted despite the explicit mandate of section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Court found cumulative procedural infirmities under sections 73, 75, and 169 sufficient to vitiate the adjudication process and the resulting demand. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the assessee's reply after affording a proper personal hearing and passing a fresh speaking order on merits. The outcome favoured the assessee with remand. This summary is for professional reading only and is not legal advice.
Harphool Chowdhury @ Harphool Choudhary v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Harphool Chowdhury challenged an adjudication order for July 2017 to March 2018 before the High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 1952 of 2026, 7 September 2026). Under Sections 73 and 75 of the CGST Act, personal hearing is mandatory where an adverse decision is contemplated; the show cause notice indicated such a decision yet no opportunity of hearing was granted. The order was unsustainable and quashed; the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after personal hearing. An attachment order linked to the defective adjudication was also set aside. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Chartered accountants should verify DRC-01 hearing schedules and compliance with Section 75(4) before final orders. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-07, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPA NO.1952 OF 2026. 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.
Ragini Communication v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Ragini Communication argued before the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 3640 of 2025, 3 September 2026) that no valid Section 73 notice was served for alleged wrongful ITC. Records showed service of a detailed demand-cum-show-cause notice for the relevant period under Rules 142 and Section 75. The writ under Article 226 was dismissed as unfounded on the notice issue; proceedings were not without jurisdiction. Residual grievances were relegated to appeal under Section 107. Outcome favoured the revenue. Assessees claiming non-service must prove portal or physical service records carefully; consolidated DRC-01 with substance may suffice in Gauhati. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-03, High Court of Gauhati recorded in favour of the revenue in WP(C) NO. 3640 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST Rules R.142, 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.
Supra Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner
In favour of the revenue
Supra Enterprises, a GST-registered partnership, filed W.P.(C) No. 11352 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court; the matter was decided on 31 August 2026 against a demand following a show cause notice alleging suppression and wrongful availment of input tax credit. The department contended that full opportunity to reply and be heard was provided, and that remaining disputes concerned appraisal of records and merits under sections 73, 74, 65, and 75 of the CGST Act. The Court agreed that where replies were on record and issues are essentially factual or evidentiary, Article 226 is not a substitute for appellate scrutiny under the GST statute. The writ petition was held not maintainable and the assessee was relegated to the statutory appeal forum. The decision favoured the revenue on jurisdiction. This editorial note is not legal advice.
Gita Rani Pan v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The High Court of Calcutta (W.P.A. No. 10402 of 2025, 27 August 2026) set aside fraud-related demand and recovery action where notice and recovery were issued in the name of a deceased sole proprietor. Gita Rani Pan, as legal representative, challenged proceedings under Sections 74 and 93 of the CGST Act. The court held that determination against a person who no longer existed was void ab initio; a show cause notice in such cases must be directed to legal representatives under the post-death liability scheme, not to the deceased taxpayer. Consequent demand and recovery based on the defective notice could not stand. The writ succeeded for the assessee. The ruling clarifies procedural prerequisites before invoking extended limitation under Section 74 against an estate. Not legal advice.
Vishwa Vinayaka Build Tech v. State of Andhra Pradesh
In favour of the assessee
Vishwa Vinayaka Build Tech, a GST-registered trader, challenged Writ Petition No. 22163 of 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 20 August 2026. The revenue had passed a composite assessment under section 73 of the CGST Act imposing one hundred per cent penalty across multiple tax periods in a single Form GST DRC-07 order. The assessee argued that consolidated adjudication prevented period-wise appeals and obscured limitation analysis. The Court held the statutory scheme requires separate orders for each tax period; composite assessments impair appellate rights and weaken procedural safeguards. On that procedural ground the impugned order was set aside without finally deciding underlying input tax credit merits. The department may issue fresh period-wise notices if advised. Outcome favoured the assessee. This editorial summary is for chartered accountants and is not legal advice.
v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
In favour of the assessee
M/s. GMR A Shaha Iron Steels, a registered firm, filed Writ Petition No. 22817 of 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 13 August 2026, against a composite assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 for financial years 2020-21 through 2023-24 under section 73 of the CGST Act. Relying on coordinate bench precedent, the Court held that a single composite order covering multiple tax periods is impermissible because it impairs statutory appeal rights and related reliefs under sections 73 and 75. The impugned order was set aside on this ground alone; other grounds of challenge were left open. Respondents were permitted to initiate fresh period-wise proceedings, subject to conditions including deposit of twenty per cent of disputed tax within six weeks. The outcome favoured the assessee. Not legal advice.
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.
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.
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.