Goods and Services Tax

Mandatory personal hearing under GST law cannot be waived by form selection; adverse order quashed for breach of natural justice.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 75(4) of the GST Act was treated as a mandatory requirement for granting personal hearing before passing an adverse order, and the taxpayer's selection of “No” in the reply form did not override that statutory obligation. The adverse order was therefore unsustainable for breach of audi alteram partem and natural justice. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after affording a hearing within the time fixed by the Court.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Documentary GST prosecution supports regular bail where further custodial interrogation is not required
Case-Laws
GST
Regular bail was granted in a GST prosecution concerning alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit through bogus invoices under Sections 132(1)(c) and (f), because the allegations were substantially supported by documentary material. The Court noted that relevant documents had been seized, statements had been recorded, and the investigation was largely complete, while the applicant had remained in custody since 16/01/2026. As no further custodial interrogation appeared necessary, bail was allowed on personal bond and surety, and the order was directed to continue until disposal of the case.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay and laches defeat writ challenge to assessment order where statutory notices were ignored and supplier certificates were raised belatedly.
Case-Laws
GST
Delay and laches barred interference under Article 226 where the petitioner failed to respond properly to the discrepancy notice and show cause notice, did not furnish invoice details before the statutory authority, and raised supplier certificates only belatedly despite their earlier availability. The High Court found no justifiable basis to reopen an assessment that had already attained finality, particularly in view of the prolonged delay and the petitioner's negligence in the statutory proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed and the assessment order left undisturbed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Common portal service of GST orders upheld; delayed writ challenge refused, with statutory appeal left open subject to limitation.
Case-Laws
GST
Service of GST orders through the common portal is legally valid under Sections 169 and 146 of the CGST Act, and a belated writ challenge based on alleged non-communication cannot be entertained nearly three years later. The High Court upheld dismissal of the writ petition on delay and laches, noting that the appellant had an available statutory appellate remedy. It further held that any such remedy must be pursued in accordance with the statutory scheme, including limitation, and no separate protective order was warranted. The appellant was left free to seek the statutory remedy subject to law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST detention and coerced statement claims rejected as disputed facts; prima facie material sustained continued custody.
Case-Laws
GST
At the investigation stage of GST detention proceedings, the Court found prima facie material supporting continued custody of the goods and conveyance, including interception of the vehicle en route to a destination different from the declared one and other investigative circumstances. The affixture of the detention order on the vehicle and office notice board, after non-appearance of the persons summoned, was not treated as illegal, and extension of time for inspection was considered a permissible statutory step. The petitioner's allegation that his statement was coerced was held to raise disputed factual questions unsuitable for Article 226 scrutiny. The writ petition was dismissed, subject to statutory remedies and a direction to furnish the detention order if the petitioner appears.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transit penalty for goods detained without fraud was held unsustainable where invoice, e-way bill and consignee note supported movement.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that penalty for detention of goods in transit was unsustainable where the record showed movement under a tax invoice, e-way bill and consignee note, and the petitioner was treated as the consignee-owner. In the absence of any allegation or material of fraud in the accompanying documents, the authorities could not ignore the transport documents or proceed against the petitioner as another person. Subsequent cancellation of registration, having occurred after the invoice and loading of goods, did not justify the penalty. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 86A cannot create a negative Electronic Credit Ledger balance; excess blocking is unlawful, though preventive action needs no prior notice.
Case-Laws
GST
Rule 86A permits only a temporary restriction on debit of credit actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger; it does not authorise the Commissioner or an authorised officer to create a negative balance by blocking more credit than stands to the taxpayer's account. The High Court also reiterated that prior show cause notice is not required before invoking Rule 86A, because the measure is preventive and intended for emergent situations, but that does not enlarge the statutory power. The impugned blocking beyond the available credit was unsustainable and was set aside, while the authorities were left free to pursue recovery through the statutory mechanisms available in law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration restoration permitted after non-filing, where taxpayer clears pending returns and statutory dues
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns was treated as amenable to restoration where the taxpayer was ready to file all pending returns and pay tax dues with applicable interest, penalty and late fee. Following its earlier decision on similar facts, the HC directed the proper authority to consider restoration under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 rather than treating cancellation as final. The taxpayer was allowed sixty days to apply for restoration, and the authority was required to act expeditiously on compliance with the statutory requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings barred on same subject matter, but summons alone do not start adjudicatory action.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, but summons and other investigative steps do not by themselves amount to initiation of such proceedings. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Armour Security, the HC noted possible overlap between Central and State GST action, but declined to decide the merits of that overlap on the material before it. It directed the assessee to comply with the summons and raise the objection before the concerned authority, while requiring the State and Central authorities to communicate and coordinate so that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter. The merits and validity of the summons and notice were left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Speedy trial and documentary evidence justified regular bail in a GST prosecution with prolonged custody.
Case-Laws
GST
Regular bail was granted in a GST prosecution because continued custody was found inconsistent with Article 21 in the circumstances of the case. The High Court noted that the offence was triable by a Magistrate, carried a maximum sentence of five years, cognizance had already been taken, the prosecution rested mainly on documentary evidence, no other case was attributed to the accused, and ten witnesses remained, indicating that trial would take time. On that basis, further incarceration was held to offend the right to a speedy trial. Bail was made subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court or Duty Magistrate, with liberty to seek cancellation for breach.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fraud-based GST demand fails where input tax credit was reversed before notice and no utilisation or intent to evade was shown.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 74 of the GST Act cannot be invoked without material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; where the taxpayer reversed the disputed input tax credit before notice and the Revenue showed no conscious involvement in any fraudulent arrangement, the proceedings were held unsustainable. Interest under Section 50 was also refused because wrongly availed credit had been reversed before the show cause notice and the Electronic Credit Ledger retained surplus balance, so utilisation was not established. A further demand and penalty on the same reversal was treated as double taxation and beyond jurisdiction, and the impugned orders were quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional bank attachment requires tangible material and strict safeguards; High Court quashes arbitrary attachment and imposes personal costs.
Case-Laws
GST
Provisional attachment of a bank account under section 83 is a drastic power that can be exercised only on a prior, valid formation of opinion based on tangible material and after compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. The pre-attachment communication and attachment order were vague, issued without a show cause notice, and disclosed no proper material or reasoning; the attachment therefore breached the petitioner's civil rights and was unlawful. The High Court quashed the attachment orders but permitted the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law if tangible material exists. Finding a gross abuse of power and high-handed conduct causing serious civil consequences, the Court also imposed personal costs on the concerned officer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Vague GST cancellation notices and non-speaking orders violate natural justice; registration restored, fresh proceedings permitted.
Case-Laws
GST
Vague show-cause notices proposing GST registration cancellation, and orders rejecting revocation, were held arbitrary because they did not deal with the petitioner's explanation for temporary discontinuance of business and showed no application of mind. The Court reiterated that a notice seeking cancellation must contain adequate reasons to enable an effective reply, and that a mechanical order passed without discussing the assessee's case violates natural justice. The impugned notices and consequential orders were quashed, registration was restored, and the department was left free to initiate fresh proceedings on a properly reasoned notice after granting a hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC mismatch reconciliation required before adverse GST adjudication; demand set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit mismatch between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A had to be reconciled in accordance with Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST before adverse adjudication; where that prescribed procedure was not followed, the adjudication order and consequential demand were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show cause notice. The assessee was left free to raise all other contentions in the remanded proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Vague show cause notice and denial of effective hearing led to quashing of the assessment order and remand
Case-Laws
GST
An assessment order rejecting input tax credit under Section 74 was quashed because the petitioner was not afforded a proper personal hearing and the show cause notice was found to be vague. The Court accepted that the authorised representative had been sent to another officer for document verification rather than being effectively heard, and held that one more meaningful opportunity of hearing was required. It also held that the notice did not sufficiently disclose the specific allegations later relied on in the order, impairing the petitioner's ability to respond. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and permitting additional documents.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTAT Lucknow Bench begins operations, with jurisdiction and filing of GST appeals now routed through the new bench.
Circulars
GST – States
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench has commenced operations at its temporary address in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and will exercise jurisdiction over the Uttar Pradesh districts notified by the Department of Revenue. Appeals under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the State GST Act arising from that jurisdiction must now be filed before the Lucknow Bench. Institution of appeals and related proceedings must follow Chapter III of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025, along with the e-filing advisory, Presidential Orders, and other applicable statutes and directions made available on the GSTAT portal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTAT bench reconstitution reshapes roster allocation, transitional transfer of matters, and continued Single Bench jurisdiction immediately.
Circulars
GST
The Principal Bench of the GSTAT reconstitutes its Division Benches under Section 109 of the CGST Act, with Division Bench-I and Division Bench-II assigned the listed Members. Matters will be heard and disposed of according to a roster to be issued separately with the President's approval. Part-heard matters of the erstwhile Division-I and II are released, except two remanded matters of Division Bench-I and three concluded matters of Division Bench-II, while remaining assigned matters transfer under the revised constitution unless otherwise directed. Second appeals will be assigned by specific orders, and Single Benches will continue to hear cases under the existing allocation. The order takes effect immediately.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTAT Judicial Members designated as Vice Presidents of State Benches under the CGST Act, formalising bench leadership.
Circulars
GST
Judicial Members of the GST Appellate Tribunal have been designated as Vice Presidents of their respective State Benches under section 109(7) of the CGST Act, 2017. The office order assigns each listed member to a specified State Bench across multiple States and Union Territories, thereby formalising their bench-wise vice presidential role for tribunal administration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kolkata Bench GSTAT begins functioning, with appeals from specified jurisdictions now to be filed there under the prescribed procedure.
Circulars
GST – States
The Kolkata Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has commenced functioning at 2/5, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata, and will exercise jurisdiction over West Bengal, Sikkim and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Appeals under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding State and Union Territory GST laws from these jurisdictions are to be filed before this Bench. Appeals, applications and related proceedings must follow the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, including Chapter III for institution of appeals. The notice also directs users to the GSTAT portal for e-filing guidance and assistance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Lenient GSTAT appeal scrutiny eases initial filing defects and clarifies certification rules for digital and scanned documents.
Circulars
GST
During the initial six-month filing phase under the GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025, the Registry of each bench must take a lenient view on appeal scrutiny and raise only substantive defects, not defects of form, so non-prejudicial filing irregularities will not be objected to. It is also clarified that documents generated digitally through the GSTN system do not require certification, while scanned copies of physical documents attached to the appeal must be signed. The order is intended to ease portal-based filing difficulties and applies for the stated initial period.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pre-deposit Percentage in the GST Portal
GST
Dated:- 11-4-2026

While filing an appeal in Form APL-01 on the GST portal, the pre-deposit percentage is auto-populated as 10% in accordance with Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, and was previously non-editable. Due to this restriction, taxpayers faced difficulties in cases where the pre-deposit had already been made through other means or where the demand amount was incorrectly reflected under the appropriate head.

To address the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice bars GST registration cancellation without considering the taxpayer's reply before adverse action.
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of GST registration could not be sustained where the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice was already on record but was not considered before the adverse order, as that defect offended natural justice. The High Court directed that the cancellation order be treated as a suspension of registration pending de novo adjudication, with the petitioner's reply examined on merits and an opportunity of hearing afforded. The department was left free to continue investigation and proceed in accordance with law for tax recovery or penalty.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice requires consideration of objections before an adverse order under Section 129(3); ignored objections vitiate the decision.
Case-Laws
GST
An adverse order under Section 129(3) must be preceded by consideration of the affected party's objections and an adequate hearing. Where objections were filed but ignored, and the order was passed without recording reasons on the penalty issue or dealing with the submissions made, the order is vitiated for breach of natural justice and audi alteram partem. The proper course is to set aside such an order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication through a reasoned decision after granting a fair opportunity of hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Adjudication passed despite interim restraint can be withdrawn, with the show cause notice remitted for fresh hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
Where an adjudication order is passed in breach of an interim order, the High Court permitted withdrawal of the order on the State's statement and treated it as withdrawn. The consequence was that the adjudication could not survive, and the show cause notice had to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Relying on earlier orders, the Court declined to examine the constitutional validity challenge and expressly kept that issue, along with all other contentions, open while directing fresh adjudication within the time fixed by the Court.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST appeal limitation and electronic order upload: High Court quashes rejection and remits matter for merits consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
Mandatory electronic upload of the summary of an adjudication order under GST is required to preserve the taxpayer's statutory right of appeal, and the appellate authority cannot treat an appeal as time-barred where that summary was issued later. Following its earlier view and the Supreme Court's principle in ASP Traders, the HC held that reliance only on an earlier email transmission was insufficient in the circumstances. The appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal on merits without reference to limitation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =