Goods and Services Tax

GST Appellate Tribunal remedy preserved after constitution, with limitation protection subject to mandatory pre-deposit and defect removal
Case-Laws
GST
Following constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the appellate remedy is available for challenging the impugned orders. The writ petition was disposed of without examining the orders' validity, with permission to file an appeal before the Tribunal by June 30, 2026. The appeal must be entertained without objection based on limitation, but remains subject to the specified mandatory pre-deposit requirements and removal of defects. The operative effect is that access to the Tribunal is preserved within the permitted timeframe, while compliance with pre-deposit and filing-defect directions remains necessary for entertainment of the appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Pre-deposit rules after reduced tax demand may avoid duplicate payment, while deficient court fees must be cured before admission.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 112 requires payment of admitted dues and the prescribed percentage of disputed tax in addition to the amount deposited under Section 107. Where the first appellate authority reduces the tax demand and the earlier pre-deposit already covers the prescribed percentage of the reduced demand, no further pre-deposit under Section 112 is required. The prescribed court fee must nevertheless be paid separately: a short payment identified by the Registry must be cured before the appeal proceeds. On payment of the balance statutory court fee and verification of the earlier pre-deposit, the matter may be placed before the Bench for admission.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Statutory appellate remedy and compliance with an unstayed order: goods released subject to bond and local surety
Case-Laws
GST
A challenge by the State to a first appellate order under the GST enactment should ordinarily be pursued before the statutory appellate forum, which can examine questions of fact and law; writ jurisdiction should not be exercised at first instance merely because the Tribunal was not fully functional. The appellate order remained operative because it had neither been stayed nor set aside, so compliance could not be withheld on the basis of a proposed challenge. Release of the goods was therefore directed subject to the petitioner furnishing a bond and local surety, preserving consequential recovery if the State ultimately succeeded in appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Jurisdictional challenges can sustain writ scrutiny of show-cause notices while enforcement remains restrained pending adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition may be entertained against a show-cause notice where the challenge concerns jurisdiction and discloses a prima facie case, despite pending statutory proceedings. The authority is not prevented from considering and deciding the notice; however, the affected parties must participate in the proceedings, while enforcement of any resulting decision may be restrained pending disposal of the writ petition or further orders. The court does not determine the merits of the underlying jurisdictional objection at this stage, including the scope of the relevant notification or the authority to issue the notice under Section 73. The arrangement preserves participation in adjudication while providing interim protection against enforcement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST transition under contract clauses shifts additional tax burden to the employer, while escalation disputes proceed through contractual remedies
Case-Laws
GST
Clause 43.2 requires contract-price adjustment where taxes, duties or levies change during contract execution and the change is not already reflected in the price. Accordingly, GST introduced during subsisting works contracts shifted the additional tax burden to the employer, supported by the contractual terms and the applicable Government Order, and the tax component was directed to be reimbursed. Retention amounts could not be withheld merely because audit objections remained pending; they were to be refunded with commercial-rate interest unless appropriation was otherwise justified. Claims for price escalation or adjustment involving disputed facts were not determined in writ proceedings and were left to the contractual dispute-resolution mechanism and other remedies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Year-wise tax assessments required: composite orders invalid, while writ challenges remain maintainable despite appellate dismissal
Case-Laws
GST
A single show-cause notice or composite assessment order cannot cover multiple tax periods where separate year-wise proceedings are required under Sections 73 and 74. The notes state that an assessment covering 2017-18 and 2018-19 was therefore set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings separately for each financial year, subject to the deposit condition and exclusion of time for limitation. They also record that a writ challenge to the original assessment remains maintainable despite dismissal of an appeal, so the appellate dismissal did not prevent examination of the assessment's legality. The matter was consequently remitted on the limited ground of the composite assessment.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST recovery stay requires pre-deposit and undertaking; refund denied despite plea of ignorance of law
Case-Laws
GST
GST recovery stay pending Tribunal proceedings was available only on compliance with the prescribed pre-deposit and filing an undertaking to appeal within time; where the taxpayer did not follow that procedure and sought refund after recovery had already been made, refund was refused. The taxpayer's plea of ignorance of the circular was rejected on the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse. Granting refund would have operated as an impermissible waiver of the pre-deposit, while the Tribunal was left free to decide the appeal on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Fraud assessment notice timelines treated as directory where no prejudice was shown and statutory remedy remained available
Case-Laws
GST
In fraud assessments, the six-month period for issuing a show cause notice before the order-in-original was treated as directory, not mandatory, because the statute prescribed no consequence for breach; the challenge therefore turned on prejudice, and none was shown where multiple notices, replies, and personal hearings were granted and the assessment was passed within limitation. The writ court also declined to bypass the statutory remedy, noting that the Supreme Court had already left the assessee to pursue the appellate forum with all contentions available, including alleged prejudice from missing files; the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to invoke that remedy.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit and retrospective supplier cancellation cannot bar claims without proof of genuine supply.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because a supplier's registration was cancelled retrospectively; the authorities must examine whether the purchaser proved actual receipt of goods through invoices, e-way bills, lorry receipts and similar records. Because that genuineness inquiry was not undertaken and most transactions predated the cancellation order, the assessment orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Section 74 foundational facts upheld, and writ challenge to the show cause notices was rejected.
Case-Laws
GST
Foundational facts supported invocation of the extended period under GST Section 74, because the notices set out detailed allegations of incorrect valuation, inadmissible credit-note adjustment and short payment of tax, backed by investigation material and prior intimation; the writ challenge was therefore rejected as the disputed factual issues were not fit for writ review. Prior audit and earlier investigation did not defeat jurisdiction, because audit under Section 65 is distinct from a pan-India DGGI investigation, and overlap alone did not invalidate notices where separate grounds of evasion were alleged. The proceedings were held maintainable and the taxpayer was directed to reply before the adjudicating authority.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Extended GST limitation under Section 74 upheld for suppression in GSTR-3B and non-filing of returns
Case-Laws
GST
Extended limitation under GST was upheld where the assessee had disclosed higher taxable turnover in GSTR-1 but restricted liability in GSTR-3B for part of the year, then failed to file returns for the later period and made only partial payment after inspection. Applying the lower threshold for invoking Section 74 under GST, the HC held that the record was sufficient to infer suppression of turnover and non-payment of tax, so the extended period and consequent demand were valid. On the separate issue of late fee for non-filing of the annual return, the Court found an inconsistency between Defect No.10 and the revenue abstract and remitted the matter only for a corrigendum correcting that limited aspect.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Assessment order against a deceased assessee is void; fresh proceedings may continue only against properly notified legal heirs.
Case-Laws
GST
Assessment proceedings issued in the name of a deceased assessee were unsustainable where the death certificate and legal heir certificate showed that death had occurred before the assessment order. The High Court set aside the impugned order because it could not validly be made against a dead person, but left the respondent free to start fresh proceedings against all legal representatives after issuing notice in accordance with the legal heir certificate.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Alternative remedy limits writ interference when natural justice complaints and penalty competence turn on factual adjudication issues.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ interference despite an alternative statutory remedy is confined to cases of patent jurisdictional defect or manifest breach of natural justice. Complaints that the reply was inadequately considered, hearing notices were not served, a statement was coerced and later retracted, or cross-examination was denied were treated as issues of factual appraisal or merits for the appellate forum, so the writ was not entertained and the petitioner was left to the statutory appeal. The Court also accepted that the proper officer conducting Section 73 or 74 adjudication can impose consequential penalty under Section 122 in the same proceeding, without separate penalty proceedings, and rejected the competence challenge.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective GST registration cancellation needs recorded reasons; matter remitted for fresh decision on effective date
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires specific reasons in the show cause notice and final order; without such reasons, cancellation cannot be given effect from the original registration date. The HC set aside the order only to that extent and remitted the matter to the Proper Officer for fresh consideration after allowing the taxpayer to file a detailed reply and after hearing. It did not examine the merits of the allegation that no business existed at the declared premises, and confined relief to the effective date of cancellation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Fraud-based GST assessment cannot stand without allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression; proceedings must follow normal classification.
Case-Laws
GST
GST proceedings based only on mismatch between ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and ITC reflected in GSTR-2A, without any allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, fall under the normal assessment route and not the fraud-based route. The HC held that the notice and orders were issued under the normal provision, and the confirmation depended only on the taxpayer's failure to substantiate the ITC claim. The assessment was set aside and remanded for a fresh order under the normal provision, and the rejection of the waiver application was also set aside with liberty to file a fresh application.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Statutory rectification remedy bars writ scrutiny of input tax credit disallowance; competent authority must decide the claim.
Case-Laws
GST
Where a statutory rectification remedy is available against an order disallowing input tax credit, the writ court will not examine whether the claim falls within the retrospectively extended cases at that stage. The Court held that the issue should first be considered by the competent authority in rectification proceedings, particularly where paragraph 3.5 provides such a remedy after an order under section 73 and no appeal has been filed. The writ petition was disposed of without deciding the merits, and the petitioner was given liberty to file a rectification application, which the authority must hear and decide in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Show cause notice controls parallel GST proceedings; other authorities must halt separate action and share material.
Case-Laws
GST
Mere inquiry communications, summons or intimation do not amount to initiation of adjudicatory proceedings; a show cause notice does. Applying that principle, the first show cause notice on the same GST subject matter was treated as governing the proceedings, and the authority issuing it had to continue and complete the matter. Other authorities dealing with the same issue were restrained from proceeding independently and were required to forward their material to the adjudicating authority, with prior intimation to the petitioner so it could respond effectively.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Deemed withdrawal of GST best judgment assessment follows belated return filing with full tax, interest and late fee payment.
Case-Laws
GST
Belated filing of a GST return after a best judgment assessment under Section 62, together with payment of tax, interest and late fee, is treated as resulting in deemed withdrawal of the assessment order. The note records that once the return for the relevant period was filed and the statutory dues were discharged, recovery under the assessment order could not continue. It follows the cited High Court view that subsequent compliance cures the basis for pursuing recovery under the best judgment assessment.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Statutory appeal rights preserved through writ jurisdiction when delay is explained and merits remain open
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the Appellate Authority had not independently examined whether sufficient cause existed for the delay and had wrongly rejected the GST appeal by relying on an earlier decision without testing its relevance to the facts. It reiterated that, although the appellate forum cannot condone delay beyond the statutory limit, the statutory right of appeal is valuable and, where sufficient cause is shown, the HC may exercise writ jurisdiction to condone the delay in the interests of justice and direct disposal on merits. The rejection was set aside, the delay was condoned subject to costs, and the appeal was remitted for decision in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Statutory pre-deposit and delay condonation: liberty granted to challenge the order, with merits left open for appellate consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory pre-deposit and delay condonation framed the operative relief: the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to file the challenge to the impugned order within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay. All grounds were left open, and the appellate authority was directed to examine the delay question first and, if satisfied, decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST jurisdiction after taxpayer migration: prior valid actions remain effective, and the transferee authority must continue proceedings.
Circulars
GST – States
Jurisdiction in GST proceedings is determined as on the date the power is invoked, so a valid action or proceeding taken by the transferor jurisdictional authority before migration or transfer of a taxable person remains valid. The transferee jurisdictional authority must then take over, give effect to, and continue the matter from that stage, including consequential proceedings and representation in appeals, while the transferor authority cannot initiate fresh action after the transfer and must pass any new issue to the transferee authority. The Goa GST circular applies the corresponding CBIC clarification mutatis mutandis under the Goa GST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Statutory refund interest limited to notified rate, so higher pre-deposit interest claim was rejected in appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory interest on a refunded investigation deposit treated as a pre-deposit is confined to the rate prescribed by the governing provision and notification. Where the statute creates the right to interest and fixes the rate, the claimant cannot seek a higher amount on equitable or restitutionary grounds unless the provision or notification itself is challenged. Applying that principle, the Court upheld interest at 6% per annum and rejected the claim for a higher rate, holding that no substantial question of law arose and dismissing the appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Successive bail on parity fails without substantial change in circumstances, especially in alleged economic offences involving GST evasion.
Case-Laws
GST
Successive bail applications require a substantial change in facts or circumstances directly affecting the merits; parity with a co-accused alone does not justify release because the court must assess the accused's individual role, the gravity of the allegations and the investigation material. Economic offences are treated as a distinct class for bail and attract a stricter approach because they may involve deliberate conspiracies and broader financial harm. On the stated facts, the accused was prima facie linked to fictitious firms, fake invoices, e-way bills and alleged GST evasion through documentary, electronic and recorded statement material, so later bail to a co-accused did not amount to a sufficient change in circumstances.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective Rule 89(5) amendment allows refund processing for unutilised input tax credit on input services
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective applicability of the amended Rule 89(5) governing refund of unutilised input tax credit on input services was treated as settled: the Court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in VKC Footsteps and the coordinate bench view in Ascent Meditech that Notification No. 14/2022 is retrospective, curative and clarificatory. As that legal position was undisputed, the deficiency memo rejecting the refund claim could not stand. The refund application was required to be processed under the amended formula and the law as declared.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory Rule 88C intimation controls GST recovery for mismatch between returns before garnishee action can proceed.
Case-Laws
GST
Mismatch between outward supplies and the return may support recovery of self-assessed tax only if the prescribed procedure is followed. The Court noted that the explanation to Section 75(12) does not create any additional liability beyond the mismatch already reflected under Sections 37 and 39. However, where recovery is pursued on that basis, the Proper Officer must first issue the prescribed intimation in FORM GST DRC-01B under Rule 88C and allow the registered person to pay the differential tax or explain the discrepancy. As no such intimation was issued, recovery through the garnishee notice under Section 79 was unsustainable and was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =