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.
278 rulings
Directorate General of GST Intelligence v. Girish Sachdeva
In favour of the assessee
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence moved the Delhi High Court (Crl.M.C. 2300, 2330 of 2021 and 3652 of 2022, 5 June 2026, Neena Bansal Krishna, J.) concerning arrest protocol against Girish Sachdeva linked to a company issuing high-value e-way bills without filing returns, untraceable at registered premises, and responding inadequately to summons, with indicia of ineligible ITC and circular trading under Sections 69 and 132 CGST. Accused sought blanket restraint on arrest; department argued structured notice satisfies natural justice. The court held providing approximately seven days’ prior notice before arrest aligned with fairness requirements yet did not permanently immunize persons from lawful coercive action under CrPC Sections 438 and 482. Department retained authority to investigate and arrest if conditions warrant after notice. Outcome favours investigative latitude while recognizing limited pre-arrest notice. Not legal advice.
Akal Trade Links v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Akal Trade Links filed WP No. 20601 of 2023 before the Madras High Court, decided 5 June 2026, against denial of input tax credit on purchases from a registered supplier who filed returns and paid tax. Invoices listed vehicle numbers, but the department denied credit for lack of lorry receipts and weighment slips without examining supply genuineness under section 16, section 155, and Rule 36. The Court set aside the confirmation order and remanded for holistic reconsideration, allowing the assessee to prove movement and receipt. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Shows limits of mechanical denial based on transport documentation alone. This summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
Narayan Enterprise v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Narayan Enterprise, trading in scrap batteries, challenged input tax credit denial before the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 2933 of 2026, decided 4 June 2026. The assessee purchased from registered suppliers, paid GST through banking channels, filed timely returns, and availed credit supported by invoices. Denial rested entirely on suppliers' failure to deposit tax, without proof of collusion or fraudulent procurement by Narayan Enterprise under sections 16, 50, 74, and 122 read with section 20 of the IGST Act. The Court set aside impugned orders and preserved the department's liberty to proceed against suppliers directly. Outcome favoured the assessee. Mirrors related scrap-trade decisions from the same bench emphasising documentary and banking compliance by purchasers. Intended for professional awareness; not legal advice.
Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax
In favour of the revenue
Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. appealed to the GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Appeal Nos. APL 2 to 7 (PB) of 2026, 4 June 2026), concerning fees paid to Dow Europe GmbH under a procurement support agreement for vendor identification and negotiation. The issue was intermediary versus import of services, place of supply under IGST Sections 2 and 13, and refund under Section 54 CGST read with Rule 89. The Tribunal found Dow Europe acted independently without authority to bind the Indian company; the supply was import of services with place of supply in India, IGST payable on reverse charge, and export-refund style claims rightly rejected. Outcome favoured revenue. Procurement support without binding agency is unlikely to qualify as intermediary services.
MNS Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
In favour of the revenue
MNS Enterprises and related writ petitioners challenged adjudication orders confirming fraudulent input tax credit based partly on a key witness’s statement, complaining of denied cross-examination. The High Court of Madras (W.P. Nos. 20547, 20549 & 20552 of 2023, 3 June 2026) held under Sections 74, 70, and 75 that cross-examination is not an absolute right in every GST inquiry; bogus ITC allegations may be rebutted with documentary evidence. Denial of cross-examination alone did not vitiate the orders. Writ was dismissed; statutory appeal was the proper remedy. Outcome favoured the revenue. CA teams defending ITC cases should prioritise invoice, logistics, and payment proof over procedural demands for witness cross-examination at writ stage. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-03, High Court of Madras recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P. NOS. 20547, 20549 & 20552 OF 2023. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, CGST S.70, 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.
Kay Arr Engineering Services v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Kay Arr Engineering Services approached the High Court of Madras (W.P. No. 5854 of 2025, decided 3 June 2026) after the Directorate General of GST Intelligence issued a show cause notice and an Assistant Commissioner adjudicated and passed an order in original confirming the revenue's proposals. The issue was whether the Assistant Commissioner had authority to pass final orders on notices issued by DGGI. Under Notification No. 02/2022-CT, only an Additional or Joint Commissioner was vested with power to adjudicate such matters. The court held that adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner was a procedural irregularity affecting jurisdiction. The impugned order in original was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh decision by the competent authority in accordance with the notifications prevailing at the relevant time. The outcome favoured the assessee. This is a case-law summary for professional reference, not legal advice.
Gurucharan Kangsa Banik v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Gurucharan Kangsa Banik, trading in scrap batteries, challenged denial of input tax credit before the Gauhati High Court, decided 3 June 2026. He purchased from registered suppliers, paid price plus GST through banking channels, maintained proper invoices, and filed returns reflecting availed credit. The revenue denied credit solely because suppliers did not remit tax to the exchequer, without alleging collusion or sham transactions by the purchaser. Justice Kardak Ete held that under section 16 of the CGST Act the remedy for supplier default lies against the supplier; consequential interest and penalty under sections 50, 74, and 122 could not stand. Impugned demand and penalty orders were set aside. Outcome favoured the assessee. Consistent Gauhati jurisprudence on supplier non-payment. Not legal advice.
GR Tech Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
GR Tech Services (P.) Ltd. obtained relief from the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 15670 of 2026, 3 June 2026) where tax was initially paid as IGST on a transaction later treated as intra-State, requiring CGST and KGST. The Assistant Commissioner demanded additional tax, interest, and penalty under Sections 73, 77, and 79 without properly adjusting or refunding the IGST already paid, contrary to refund rules (Rules 92 and 145). The impugned demand orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in compliance with the statutory scheme for reclassification and refund. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Key takeaway: recharacterisation of supply must follow adjustment/refund mechanics, not parallel demand alone. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-03, High Court of Karnataka recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WRIT PETITION NO. 15670 OF 2026 (T-RES). Central provisions engaged included CGST S.77, CGST S.73, CGST S.79. 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.
Tvl. KPK fuel services v. State Tax Officer
In favour of the revenue
Tvl. KPK Fuel Services lost before the Madras High Court (2 June 2026, WP No. 17421 of 2026) challenging late fee levied under Section 47 for failure to furnish the annual return in Form GSTR-9 by the statutory due date. The assessee argued that Section 47 late fee applies only when a return is filed belatedly, not when it is never filed, and therefore no late fee could attach to complete non-filing. The Court rejected that distinction, holding Section 47 covers both belated filing and non-filing scenarios, making imposition of late fee and related penalty valid under Sections 44 and 125 when GSTR-9 is omitted altogether. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Chartered Accountants should treat non-filing of GSTR-9 as equally exposed to Section 47 late fee as delayed filing. Not legal advice.
Rohit Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab
In favour of the assessee
Rohit Kumar Gupta filed CRM-M No. 19525 of 2026 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court; order 2 June 2026. As proprietor of a GST-registered iron and steel trading concern he was arrested for allegedly claiming wrongful input tax credit; investigation relied on documents already secured. He remained in custody for over three and a half months. The court found no flight risk, no need to tamper with documentary evidence, and that trial delay weighed in favour of bail under BNSS alongside CGST Sections 69 and 132. Bail was granted subject to conditions. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Illustrates bail factors in ITC fraud investigations. Not legal advice. Continued detention requires ongoing justification; document-based ITC cases may favour bail once investigation stabilises.
New Kabady Shop v. State of Texes Department of Th. Its Commissioner
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
New Kabady Shop filed before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (WP(C) No. 593 of 2026, 2 June 2026) after a one-day delay in filing its GST appeal following a family bereavement; the Appellate Authority rejected condonation under Section 107 CGST despite the narrow overrun. Dhar and Parihar JJ invoked extraordinary Article 226 power to condone delay, set aside rejection, and restore the appeal for merits to avoid gross injustice where statutory condonation caps applied. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Writ may exceptionally aid minimal delay beyond Section 107 condonation limits. 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.
Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd., a BOT annuity road concessionaire, challenged GST demand on post-COD annuity before the Meghalaya High Court (WP(C) No. 245 of 2024, 2 June 2026), raising classification, exemption, composite supply, and constitutional issues under Sections 3, 5, 9, 74 and 107 CGST. Thangkhiew and Bhattacharjee JJ found mixed questions of fact and law requiring adjudication, with no grave jurisdictional or natural justice breach, and declined Article 226 in favour of statutory appeal. Outcome favoured revenue on maintainability. Large infrastructure concessions should pursue Section 107/GSTAT for annuity tax characterisation. 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.
Evm Motors and Vehicles India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Director
In favour of the assessee
In EVM Motors and Vehicles India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Director (WP (C) No. 41857 of 2025), the High Court of Kerala on 2 June 2026 quashed a composite show cause notice spanning multiple financial years in non-fraud proceedings under Sections 73 and 75 of the CGST Act. The court applied settled law that a single consolidated notice covering several years is impermissible where fraud or wilful misstatement is not involved. The department was granted liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year, with limitation to be computed afresh for each period. The writ was allowed in favour of the assessee. For chartered accountants, the decision reinforces period-wise adjudication as a structural requirement in ordinary demand proceedings. Not legal advice.
Tvl. Narumanam Spices v. Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise
See the decision
Tvl. Narumanam Spices filed W.P.(MD) No. 13982 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; order 1 June 2026. The Superintendent passed an ex parte assessment alleging excess input tax credit from mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. Before the order the assessee had paid the differential ITC and explained its failure to respond to notices as a lapse by a part-time accountant. The court found that even where discrepancies exist, ex parte adjudication without effective opportunity to explain and produce documents offends fairness. The assessment was set aside with direction for fresh consideration after a proper hearing. Outcome favours procedural relief for the assessee. Sections 16 and 73 applied. Not legal advice. Fresh adjudication must consider whether the GSTR-2A mismatch was explainable and whether pre-payment of differential credit should adjust the demand.
Tvl. Kodeeswaran Jewellers v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
In favour of the assessee
Tvl. Kodeeswaran Jewellers appealed before the Madras High Court (W.A.(MD) 774/2026, 1 June 2026) after an assessment order was communicated solely by portal upload. The jeweller, a small business, cited difficulty accessing the portal and missed the statutory appeal period. Sections 169 and 107 CGST framed service and appellate limitation. The Division Bench held it unreasonable to expect continuous portal monitoring in these circumstances; portal-only communication did not fairly start limitation. The appellant was granted fifteen additional days to file appeal and have it decided on merits without prejudice to the revenue's defence on assessment. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The judgment extends service fairness principles into appellate access for smaller traders in Tamil Nadu despite digital filing norms.
Renganathan & Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
In favour of the assessee
Renganathan & Sons, tobacco trader (Madras High Court, WP(MD) 26461 of 2025, 1 June 2026, G.R. Swaminathan, J.) disputed reclassification imposing higher compensation cess. Department treated product as manufactured tobacco under CETH 2403 99 entries after petitioner sprinkled jaggery water, shade-dried and bulked raw tobacco. Court found no manufacture altering essential character under Section 9 chargeability principles; processes were preparatory handling of unmanufactured tobacco classifiable under CETH 2401 20 90. Higher cess categories 2403 99 10/90 inapplicable. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Classification turns on whether processes amount to manufacture, not mere physical treatment or packaging. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. Material facts and holdings are drawn from the reported judgment.
MD. Nekib Hussain v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Before the Gauhati High Court (1 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2789 of 2026), Md. Nekib Hussain challenged registration cancellation for six months’ non-filing of returns and inability to apply for revocation because of portal restrictions that prevented timely filing of Form GST REG-21. He undertook to file all pending returns and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. The Court, in parity with Dhirghat Hardware Stores, applied Section 29 and Section 30 and held restoration appropriate where compliance cures the default that triggered cancellation under Section 29(2)(c), especially because cancellation carries serious civil consequences for continuing business. The writ was allowed in favour of the assessee with directions that the proper officer consider restoration expeditiously once compliance is demonstrated. Statutory limitation for demand and all outstanding dues remain payable. This is an editorial case summary for Chartered Accountants and is not legal advice.
Bhushan Chandra Deka v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The Gauhati High Court (1 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2730 of 2026) considered a works-contract proprietor whose GST registration was suspended and cancelled in 2024 after six months of non-filing of returns, following an unsuccessful appeal. The petitioner attributed the default to serious burn injuries from an LPG blast and stated that the statutory window for revocation on the portal had closed. Relying on Section 29(2)(c) and the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, and aligning with Dhirghat Hardware Stores, the Court held that cancellation carries serious civil consequences and that a taxpayer willing to cure the default may still be restored. The writ was allowed in favour of the assessee: the petitioner may apply within sixty days, file all pending returns, and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee; the proper officer must consider restoration expeditiously. Limitation under Section 73(10) runs from the order date, except FY 2024-25 under Section 44. This is a case-law summary, not legal advice.