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
Ajijul Haque @ Hoque v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee
Ajijul Haque @ Hoque challenged cancellation of GST registration before the High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 1964 of 2026, decided 7 September 2026). Registration was cancelled for six-month default in filing returns without specific allegation of tax evasion; the petitioner undertook to file all pending returns and pay outstanding dues. Under Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act, the court found abrupt cancellation counterproductive to revenue recovery where compliance could be restored through conditional relief. The cancellation order was set aside subject to the petitioner fulfilling filing and payment requirements within directed timelines, enabling restoration of registration upon compliance. Outcome favoured the assessee on conditional terms rather than unconditional reinstatement. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
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.
MAC Industry v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
MAC Industry challenged refund denial before the High Court of Gujarat (R/Special Civil Application No. 1693 of 2026, decided 3 September 2026) under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules restricting IGST refund on exports. The show cause notice and consequential order were issued after Rule 96(10) was omitted from the rules without a saving clause. Relying on IGST Section 16, CGST Section 54, Rule 96, and the Gujarat High Court decision in Goodluck India Ltd., the court held the restriction could not survive for pending or subsequent proceedings. Related SCN and orders were quashed. Outcome favoured the assessee. Omission of a restrictive rule without savings typically ends its application to new adjudication. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
HD Associates v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
HD Associates challenged a search at its partnership firm's business premises before the Gauhati High Court (WP(C) 3066/2026, 3 September 2026), contending that the action under Section 67 CGST was void for want of valid authorization and that reasons ought to have been disclosed beforehand. The department relied on FORM GST INS-01 authorization and related powers under the CGST Act and Rules, including Rules 139 and 99, with potential follow-on proceedings under Sections 61, 74, 74A, 75 and 122. The court found that valid authorization existed on the record and that the statute does not require prior disclosure of reasons to the taxable person at the search stage. Allegations of vitiated search therefore failed. The adjudicating authority was directed to verify the validity of authorization and seized records during adjudication on merits. The writ relief sought by the assessee was rejected. Outcome: in favour of the revenue, affirming that authorized search under Section 67 is not defeasible merely because the assessee was not pre-informed of the underlying intelligence or reasons.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Vertex Homes (P.) Ltd
In favour of the assessee
The GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NAPA No. 87 (PB) of 2025, 2 September 2026), reviewed whether Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd. profiteered by retaining post-GST ITC benefit on a construction project. A homebuyer had complained; the developer evidenced significant escalation in input costs after GST, particularly in ready-mix concrete, sand and bricks. The Tribunal held the DGAP methodology that accounted for post-GST input cost increases was legally sound and that those cost rises had offset the additional ITC, so the developer did not breach Section 171 CGST or Rules 126 and 129. The DGAP report was accepted. Outcome favoured the assessee developer. Anti-profiteering analysis is net of eligible cost escalation, not ITC gain alone. 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.
Ramalingam Chellapppa v. Superintendent
In favour of the assessee
Ramalingam Chellapppa approached the Madras High Court (1 September 2026, WP (MD) No. 25121 of 2026) for restoration after cancellation of his GST registration following default in return compliance. The department opposed restoration on the same grounds litigated in earlier Madras High Court jurisprudence. The Court followed Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy and held the controversy fully covered by that precedent under Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act, requiring no fresh merits inquiry where facts and legal issues were indistinguishable. Cancellation was set aside and registration directed restored subject to specified compliance conditions including filing of pending returns and payment of statutory dues. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Illustrates binding effect of coordinate bench rulings on parallel registration-restoration facts. Summary for professionals; not legal advice.
Rakesh Kumar Singh, In re
In favour of the revenue
Rakesh Kumar Singh, a Kolkata trader in dried and cured tobacco leaves, applied to the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (Order No. 09/WBAAR/2026-27, 1 September 2026) for classification and GST rate on unmanufactured tobacco, including whether the supply was exempt agricultural produce. Revenue pointed to prior Section 129 enforcement in June 2025, where intercepted goods were held to be unmanufactured tobacco taxable at 28%, contrary to documents showing 5%, and the applicant had admitted the infringement and paid IGST penalty. The Authority examined Section 98(2) CGST and its first proviso, which bars admitting an advance ruling where the same question is already pending or decided in proceedings against the applicant under the Act. After multiple hearing opportunities, the application was rejected as inadmissible rather than ruled on merits. Outcome favoured revenue in the sense that no favourable ruling was issued; the bar under Section 98(2) applied. This is a procedural precedent on repeat questions after enforcement, not tax 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.
Naganath Constructions v. Government of Karnataka
In favour of the assessee
Naganath Constructions and allied petitioners filed before the Karnataka High Court (WP 105663, 105759 and 106110/2026, 31 August 2026) as Class-I contractors who executed civil works for the State, paid differential GST after transition under Section 142 CGST, and sought reimbursement. With the State benefiting from completed works, the court held contractors acquired a legal right to reimbursement of incremental GST liability arising from transition, consistent with Er. Roland S. State entities were directed to promptly verify and pay differential amounts confined to GST introduction impact rather than unrelated contractual disputes. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Bulk contractor petitions reinforce Karnataka's direction on government reimbursement of transition differentials subject to verification of invoices, challans, contract rates, payments and Section 142 transition claims.
BA Continuum India (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
BA Continuum India Pvt. Ltd. filed Writ Petition No. 3598 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court (31 August 2026) after the Appellate Authority dismissed its refund appeal solely for non-attendance without a speaking order on merits under Section 107 CGST. Karnik and Patil JJ held such dismissal breached statutory mandate and natural justice, quashed the order, and restored the appeal for merit-based adjudication. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Appellate authorities must address substantive refund grounds even when parties default on hearings, or give reasoned orders. 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.
Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)
In favour of the assessee
ESNP Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court, decided 28 August 2026, contesting denial of input tax credit on inputs used to construct property intended for lease or license. The revenue invoked blocked credit for immovable property under section 17. The Court noted Chief Commissioner v. Safari Retreats on construction for own business use and held orders ignored that principle under sections 54 and 79 and Rule 142B. Impugned orders were set aside for fresh evaluation applying Safari Retreats to lease-intent facts. Outcome favoured the assessee. Relevant for builders structuring commercial premises and ITC claims. Not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
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.
Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Cart Infralog Ltd. challenged input tax credit recovery before the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 16556 of 2025, decided 27 August 2026. The assessee demonstrated valid tax invoices, physical receipt of goods, and payment to suppliers for the transactions in dispute. Recovery was nevertheless pursued because suppliers failed to deposit GST and corresponding entries did not appear in GSTR-2A. Justice Smita Das De held that, absent collusion or fraud by the recipient, coercive recovery from the purchaser was without jurisdiction under sections 16, 73, 74, and 79 of the CGST Act; the department should first proceed against defaulting suppliers under section 79. The impugned recovery was quashed and the matter remanded for lawful action. Outcome favoured the assessee. This editorial summary is for chartered accountants and is not legal advice.
Lux Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax
In favour of the assessee
Lux Industries Ltd. filed interlocutory applications before the GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (INTL.APPL Nos. 1 to 21 (KLK) of 2026, 25 August 2026) seeking early hearing of 21 pending appeals. It cited substantial financial prejudice from denial of refund and prolonged pendency; procedural prerequisites were met and respondents did not oppose priority listing. Under Sections 111 and 112 CGST governing tribunal procedure and appeals, the Tribunal found a compelling case for expedited hearing and allowed the applications. Outcome favoured the assessee on listing only, without deciding substantive tax merits. Large refund-dependent appellants may cite financial prejudice where record and opposition support early board dates. 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.
Super Wave Technology (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Super Wave Technology (P) Ltd. filed a writ before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 13162 of 2026, decided 24 August 2026) after denial of refund based on transitional input tax credit for an X-ray inspection system imported before GST rollout, claimed through GSTR-3B following central administrative advice. Revenue cited closure of the TRAN-1 window and jurisdictional objections without examining entitlement on merits. Under Sections 54, 140, and Rule 117, the court found refund was never adjudicated substantively. The petitioner was granted liberty to represent before the central assessing authority for a decision on transitional credit eligibility. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand for substantive consideration rather than outright grant of refund. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
Vijayan Sahadevan (Deceased) v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST
In favour of the assessee
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (Appeal No. APL/19/TVP/2026, 21 August 2026), set aside demand proceedings against the estate of Vijayan Sahadevan, a deceased sole proprietor whose GSTIN had been cancelled and business discontinued. Section 93(1)(b) CGST requires notice and inquiry directed to the legal representative, with liability limited to the inherited estate. Section 16 on ITC was also in play in the underlying dispute. The Tribunal held that continuing proceedings only against the deceased, without proper steps against the heir, rendered the order-in-appeal and underlying proceedings unsustainable. Outcome favoured the assessee’s legal representative. Departments must re-initiate against successors within Section 93 limits after death of a registrant. 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.
Metal Trade Incorporation v. State Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee
Metal Trade Incorporation filed WP No. 35866 of 2023 before the Madras High Court, decided 21 August 2026, challenging prolonged blocking of its electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules. Restrictions continued for more than two years despite the rule prescribing a maximum one-year limitation period, after which blocked credit must be unblocked automatically. Internal departmental communications were held incapable of lawfully extending the restriction beyond the statutory period. Justice S. Raveekumar declared the continued blockage invalid and granted relief restoring normal ledger operations essential for return filing and working capital management. Outcome favoured the assessee. Chartered accountants should monitor Rule 86A timelines closely and contest overlong administrative freezes through timely writ or representation. 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.
Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
In favour of the revenue; matter remanded
Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant filed WP No. 31773 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; order 19 August 2026. Under Section 128A the petitioner paid the entire admitted tax before the notified cut-off but submitted the formal amnesty application after the prescribed deadline in Rule 164. The court affirmed the filing deadline is mandatory, not directory, which favoured revenue on strict timing. However, given full tax payment and revenue protection, an ex parte rejection was set aside and the case remanded for reconsideration after granting reasonable opportunity to be heard. Outcome: mixed—remand benefits assessee procedurally. Sections 128A and 50 contextualised interest waiver. CAs should calendar amnesty filing dates carefully. Not legal advice. Restaurants and SMEs should treat Rule 164 filing dates as hard deadlines separate from tax payment under Section 128A.
Umen Chandra Roy v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Umen Chandra Roy succeeded in part before the Calcutta High Court (17 August 2026, WPA No. 1360 of 2026) where a rectification application seeking correction of input tax credit in returns was rejected because it was filed beyond a six-month period stated in departmental circulars, even though Section 16(5) of the CGST Act does not prescribe a limitation for availing ITC subject to other conditions. The petitioner invoked Article 226, arguing executive instructions under Section 168 cannot curtailed substantive statutory rights. The Court held rejection based solely on circular delay was unsustainable and remanded the rectification application for consideration on merits, leaving scope to reject only if delay was shown to be unexplained or exceptional on facts. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand under Article 226. Relevant for ITC rectification beyond internal departmental timelines. Not legal advice.