Goods and Services Tax

CGST Delhi South Commissionerate unearths fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of over Rs. 8 crore; director of company arrested
GST
Dated:- 18-4-2026

Continuing its enforcement drive against Input Tax Credit (ITC) frauds, the Anti-Evasion Branch of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Delhi South Commissionerate, has arrested a director of a company dealing in assorted items for fraudulent availment/utilisation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of more than Rs. 8 crore in violation of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Intelligence was developed through data-analytics that the taxpayer was involved in fraudulent availment/utilisation of ineligible ITC without underlying supply from the suppliers which were either suspe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST transit detention upheld where false e-way bill declaration and defective delivery challan justified penalty.
Case-Laws
GST
State GST officers in West Bengal were competent to intercept and detain goods in transit under the IGST Act, because section 4 operates as a deeming provision and no contrary notification was shown. The claim that West Bengal was only a transport corridor failed, as interception occurred within the State and the accompanying documents did not conclusively establish lawful transit. The Court also held that declaring a registered dealer as an unregistered person in the e-way bill, together with a delivery challan signed by an unauthorised person and not meeting Rules 55 and 138, amounted to actionable contraventions. Detention and penalty under section 129 were therefore sustained.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice in ITC mismatch disputes requires consideration of reconciliation material before disallowance can be sustained.
Case-Laws
GST
An adjudication order alleging ineligible input tax credit on account of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A could not stand where the authority failed to consider the reconciliation statement specifically furnished by the taxpayer and did not give an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The HC held that, because the dispute was factual and the reply referred to reconciliation material in Annexure-1, the authority was required to re-examine that material before concluding that no reconciliation had been produced. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to explain the ITC mismatch.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective GST explanation and composite supply classification require fresh assessment after determining the true nature of supplies.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST did not compel retrospective application of the explanation added to Sl. No. 234 of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate); any pre-01.01.2019 benefit was only optional, so the assessment was unsustainable to the extent it treated that explanation as mandatorily retrospective. It also found the authority had failed to determine the true nature of the supplies, namely whether they resulted in immovable property as works contract or constituted installation of movable goods under composite supply, and had not identified the turnover relatable to the period before 01.01.2019. The assessment was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration, leaving open the vires question.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST cross-empowerment and disputed classification must be challenged in appeal, not writ, where suppression is alleged.
Case-Laws
GST
State GST authorities may initiate intelligence-based enforcement action under the GST regime even where the taxpayer is administratively assigned to the Central administration, so the challenge to jurisdiction failed. Disputes over classification and the assessing authority's finding of suppression for invoking Section 74 involved disputed facts and could not be examined in writ jurisdiction, so those objections had to be pursued before the statutory appellate authority under Section 107. The writ court was therefore correct in directing the taxpayer to avail the appeal remedy while leaving all grounds, including jurisdiction, open before the appellate forum.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No matter-of-right conversion of non-bailable warrants was established; fact-specific precedents created no conflict for Larger Bench review.
Case-Laws
GST
No binding conflict existed among the cited Single Bench orders on conversion of non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants, because each was decided on its own facts and none laid down a rule that an accused in an economic or heinous offence has a matter-of-right entitlement to conversion. One case concerned only the validity of non-bailable warrants and refusal of interim stay, another upheld refusal of conversion on its facts, and a third granted conversion through inherent jurisdiction on the overall circumstances. As no ratio emerged to require reference to a Larger Bench, the reference was left unanswered and the learned Single Judge was directed to decide the matter on its merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Non-speaking GST cancellation and ignored condonation grounds vitiated both orders, leading to remand for fresh consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancellation could not stand where the original order was non-speaking and did not disclose the date, mode or manner of service of the show cause notice, despite service being disputed. Proceeding ex parte on an assumed service basis without recording those particulars rendered the cancellation order unsustainable, and it was set aside with remand for fresh decision after reply and hearing. The appellate order was also vitiated because the authority failed to consider the specific grounds for condonation of delay raised in the appeal memorandum and instead relied on assumptions not reflected in the appeal itself. That order too was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite demand notices cannot force multiple appeals or extra pre-deposit for penalty arising from one adjudication order.
Case-Laws
GST
A single adjudication order creating tax and penalty liability cannot be split through separate DRC-07 notices so as to force multiple appeals or an additional pre-deposit toward penalty. The statutory appeal mechanism is satisfied by one appeal against the composite order on deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand, without any further deposit at that stage for the penalty component. The Court permitted withdrawal of the two notices and issuance of a fresh composite DRC-07, and clarified that limitation for appeal would run from service of the fresh notice, with no further recovery pending compliance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice and reasoned condonation orders: assessment and appellate orders quashed for denying hearing and ignoring delay grounds.
Case-Laws
GST
An assessment order cannot be sustained where the authority fixes a personal hearing before the assessee's last available date to file a reply to the show cause notice, because that denies a fair opportunity of hearing; the HC quashed the original order and remitted the matter for fresh hearing and decision. An appellate order rejecting an appeal is equally invalid if it fails to consider a specific condonation of delay ground and give reasons on that request, even where rejection may ultimately be justified; the HC set aside the appellate order for non-consideration of the condonation plea.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Jurisdictional defect in adjudication order vitiated tax decision, but fresh hearing remitted to competent authority.
Case-Laws
GST
An adjudication order was vitiated for want of jurisdiction because it was digitally signed by the Commercial Tax Officer, the power to pass the order lay with the Deputy Commissioner; the digital signature was treated as primary evidence of the decision-making authority, and the State's explanation that the order had been uploaded through another officer's dashboard was rejected. The Court, however, did not accept the assessee's objection on limitation, holding that the show cause notice had been issued by the competent authority and the assessee had participated in the proceedings, so a procedural defect at the stage of the order did not justify avoiding adjudication altogether. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice requires physical service of show cause notice after registration cancellation; adjudication set aside and remitted.
Case-Laws
GST
Where registration had already been cancelled, adjudication could continue only on physical service of the show cause notice because the taxpayer could not be expected to access the Common Portal; service merely by electronic upload was therefore inadequate. The absence of physical notice caused a substantial breach of natural justice and denied an effective opportunity to file objections and be heard. The HC accordingly set aside the adjudication order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after physical service of notice, supply of relied-upon documents, and grant of due hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anti-profiteering in cinema ticket pricing: GST reduction had to be passed on, with interest only prospectively and no penalty.
Case-Laws
GST
Once GST was reduced, the seller remained under a statutory duty to pass on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, and regulated cinema ticket pricing did not displace scrutiny under anti-profiteering law. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Telangana cinema licensing orders and found no equitable relief because material facts had not been fully disclosed and the earlier High Court conditions were not shown to have been satisfied. It accepted the DGAP methodology, held that the base price should have been maintained after the tax cut, and found profiteering established. Interest was made recoverable only prospectively from 28.06.2019, while penalty was held inapplicable because the penalty provision came into force later.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rs 7 crore GST fraud unearthed in UP's Pilibhit; 13 fictitious firms detected
GST
Dated:- 17-4-2026
PTI
Pilibhit (UP), Apr 17 (PTI) An alleged fraud involving misuse of a GST ID to misappropriate funds worth around Rs 7 crore has been uncovered here, with police detecting 13 fake firms which were allegedly used to generate bogus bills, officials said on Friday.

According to police, the accused allegedly duped a local businessman on the pretext of arranging a bank loan and obtained his GST credentials before carrying out the fraudulent transactions.

The complainant, Mohammad Naeem, a resident of Mohalla Chhota Khudaganj and proprietor of Shahji Enterprises, runs a handpump installation and labour services business.

In

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory on Re-Computation of Interest under Table 5.1 of GSTR-3B
GST
Dated:- 17-4-2026

1. As a facilitation measure for taxpayers and assisting the taxpayers in doing a correct self-assessment, GST Portal auto-calculates interest on delayed filing of GSTR-3B based on the tax liability discharged and tax liability breakup provided in “Tax Liability Breakup, As Applicable” table.

2. This system computed interest is auto-populated and collected in the Table-5.1 of the subsequent period GSTR-3B. The facility is similar to the collection of late fees for GSTR-3B, which is also calculated after filing of GSTR-3B and collected in subsequent GSTR-3B period.

3. The detailed breakup of interest computation can be verified from the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ided under Table 5.1 of GSTR-3B. Upon clicking this option, the system recalculates the interest based on the latest and updated parameters available in the system and the revised interest amount will then be reflected in the updated system generated GSTR-3B PDF.

5. Taxpayers are advised to refer to the updated GSTR-3B system generated PDF for the revised interest values and accordingly, update the interest figures in Table 5.1 by manually editing the already auto-populated values in Table 5.1. The revised interest will also be visible on hover of respective field in Table 5.1 of GSTR-3B. Kindly note that the manually edited interest value shall not be less than the recomputed interest appearing in system generated GSTR-3B pdf.

Thanks

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 76 cannot justify double taxation where GST collected was already paid through another registration.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition against a show cause notice was entertained because the matter had been pending for years, pleadings were complete, no further factual enquiry was needed, and the notice itself showed that the amount collected as GST matched the amount paid to the Government. On those admitted facts, the Court treated the issue as a pure question of law on the scope of Section 76 of the CGST Act and held that the provision could not be used to demand tax again merely because payment was made through another GST registration of the same assessee in the same State. Section 76 targets non-remittance of tax collected, not double taxation where the revenue has already received the amount.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ jurisdiction in tax disputes is barred when natural justice is satisfied and a statutory appeal is available.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition in a tax matter was held not maintainable where the adjudicating authority had considered the taxpayer's reply, written submissions, annexures, invoices, classification plea, exemption claim and valuation objections. The Court found no breach of natural justice because adequate opportunity of hearing had been given and the impugned order dealt with the material on record while partly confirming and partly dropping the demand. As the dispute involved detailed factual and legal examination, the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, where all grounds could be raised. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to file an appeal on complying with the statutory deposit requirement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proper officer jurisdiction upheld for penalty on fraudulent ITC, with procedural defects treated as curable under the CGST Act.
Case-Laws
GST
A Joint Commissioner who had issued the show-cause notice before a later circular could validly pass the Order-in-Original imposing penalty for fraudulent availment and passing of ITC, since the proceedings had been initiated under Section 74 and the same officer had jurisdiction on the date of adjudication. The Court held that Section 160 of the CGST Act cured mere procedural defects or omissions where the proceedings were otherwise in substance in conformity with the Act. It also noted that the petitioner had not effectively contested jurisdiction at the notice stage or participated in the proceedings, so the objection was untenable. The writ challenge failed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 79 recovery notice upheld where the proper officer acted and no separate prior notice was required after final assessment.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 79 permits recovery of tax dues from third parties without any separate statutory requirement of prior authorization before recovery proceedings are initiated. The High Court found that the jurisdictional Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) was the notified proper officer under the Gazette notification, so the notice could not be challenged for want of competence. It also held that once the assessment order had attained finality, no further prior notice to the dealer was required before issuing a garnishee notice to the bank. The recovery notice was therefore lawful and the writ petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice bars GST recovery from a relative without prior liability determination and hearing, HC quashes bank attachment.
Case-Laws
GST
Recovery of GST dues from a deceased taxpayer's relative cannot be effected without prior determination that the relative is liable under Section 93, after notice and an opportunity of hearing. Where the petitioner and the deceased had separate GST registrations and distinct places of business, mere similarity of trade name was insufficient to justify automatic recovery. Freezing a bank account without adjudicatory process and without inviting objections also breached natural justice and due process, since attachment of bank property is a drastic measure requiring tangible material and a formed opinion. The HC held the recovery action suffered from a jurisdictional defect, quashed the attachment, directed de-freezing of the account, and left the Department free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Binding advance rulings defeated GST exemption claim for frozen meat supply, securing reimbursement of tax paid.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that exemption under Notification No. 2/2017 did not apply to the petitioner's supply of frozen meat, because the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling and the appellate authority had already determined that the goods were supplied in unit containers and attracted GST at five per cent. Those advance rulings were binding on the petitioner under Section 103 of the CGST Act, so it was required to pay the tax accordingly. As the respondents rejected reimbursement only on the mistaken assumption that the supplies were exempt, there was no legal basis to deny reimbursement of the GST already paid. The petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the balance GST amount, with interest payable on default.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Additional evidence in appeal must be examined under Rule 112 before rejection of the appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
The appellate authority misread Rule 112 by treating production of additional evidence in appeal as unavailable, without examining whether the case fell within clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1). The High Court held that the petitioner's contentions on the admissibility of additional evidence required consideration, and that the matter could also have been remanded to the original authority if factual examination was necessary. Because the substantive grounds and additional evidence were not considered under Rule 112, the appellate order could not stand. The order was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh decision, with all contentions left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice in GST adjudication: ex parte order on factual discrepancies set aside, with fresh hearing directed.
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside an ex parte adjudication under Section 73 where the show cause notice raised factual disputes on return mismatches, excess input tax credit, supplier default, delayed tax payment and related interest. It held that the petitioner had to be heard on merits before such discrepancies were decided, especially where the petitioner claimed material existed to rebut the alleged defaults. Because allowing the order to stand would cause serious financial prejudice, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to respond, and the consequential bank attachment was directed to be withdrawn.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory right of appeal protected against coercive recovery pending expiry of the appeal period and pre-deposit requirements.
Case-Laws
GST
Coercive recovery could not be used to defeat a subsisting statutory right of appeal where the appeal period under the Act and the relevant notification had not expired. The High Court protected the petitioner from recovery because the petitioner stated an intention to file an appeal with a stay application within the available period; if the appeal is filed, the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 10% would apply and recovery would not be pursued in any event. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the Department to recover dues in accordance with law if no appeal is filed, while all merits were kept open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite assessment orders for multiple financial years are unsustainable; separate proceedings must be initiated for each assessment year.
Case-Laws
GST
A single show-cause notice or composite assessment order cannot validly cover more than one tax period once the due date for filing the annual return has been reached. Applying an earlier Division Bench view, the HC held that the impugned assessment, framed by one order for multiple financial years, was unsustainable and set it aside. The matter was remitted with liberty to commence fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year, and the intervening period was excluded for limitation purposes. All other grounds raised by the petitioner were left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Unsigned assessment order invalid; defective service defeats delay objection and fresh reassessment may follow after due notice.
Case-Laws
GST
An unsigned assessment order is invalid, because the assessing officer's signature is mandatory and Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act do not cure that defect. Service of an unsigned order cannot be treated as valid service under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, so an objection based on delay in filing the writ petition failed. The impugned assessment order was set aside, liberty was reserved to complete a fresh assessment after due notice and with a duly signed order, and the intervening period was directed to be excluded for limitation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =