Blogs
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP and upheld that mere detection of excess stock does not automatically warrant confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act. Authorities must ordinarily proceed under Sections 73/74 for tax determination unless stringent conditions for confiscation are clearly met
Additional Commissioner Grade-2 vs. Vijay Trading Company (SLP (C) Diary No. 5881 of 2025) 1. Brief Facts The Assessee, Vijay Trading Company, was subjected to inspection/search under the CGST Act. During inspection, excess stock of goods was allegedly found. The...
The Supreme Court held that ITC cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax with the Government. Recovery action must be taken against the defaulting seller, not the innocent purchaser.
Commissioner, Trade & Tax, Delhi vs. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2042–2047 of 2015 Supreme Court of India) 1. Brief Facts The Respondent-Assessee, Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd., was a registered dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004....
The Rajasthan High Court held that refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure for periods prior to 18.07.2022 cannot be denied. ITC being an indefeasible vested right, subsequent circulars or clarifications cannot operate retrospectively to curtail accrued credit.
Swastik Oil Industries & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11549/2023 & connected matters) Brief Facts The petitioners challenged denial of refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure for periods prior to 18.07.2022....
Madras High Court held that mere upload of GST notices on the portal, without ensuring effective service in case of repeated non-response, cannot justify an ex-parte assessment.
TVL. Nagappa Textiles vs. Union of India / State Tax Officer (Madras High Court – W.P. (MD) No. 1317 of 2026) 1. Brief Facts The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order dated 31.12.2024 passed ex-parte. All notices, including the show cause notice, were uploaded...
Enhancements in GSTR-3B (Effective from January 2026 Tax Period)
The GST Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory dated 30 January 2026 introducing important system-level enhancements in GSTR-3B, aimed at improving accuracy and aligning interest computation with statutory provisions. The key changes are summarised below for your...
The Allahabad High Court held that ITC cannot be denied to a bona fide purchaser where the supplier was registered at the time of transaction and tax was duly deposited.
Saniya Traders vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Writ Tax No. 1743 of 2024 – High Court of Allahabad) 1. Brief Facts The petitioner (assessee) purchased scrap batteries from a GST-registered supplier. Payment including GST component was made through banking...
The Allahabad High Court held that mere expiry of an e-way bill, without any other adverse material, does not establish intent to evade tax and cannot justify penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act.
Kamla Machines vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Tax No. 4506 of 2025 High Court of Allahabad) 1. Brief Facts The petitioner, registered under Haryana GST, purchased machinery parts from Maharashtra on bill-to-ship basis, where goods were to be delivered to...
The Madras High Court held that prima facie duplication of ITC demand across multiple adjudication orders warrants reconsideration under Section 161 of the GST Act. The rectification rejection order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh examination.
M/s Nabati Food (India) Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise & Ors. (W.P. No. 42823 of 2025High Court of Madras) 1. Brief Facts The petitioner challenged: Order dated 27.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST...
The Delhi High Court held that ITC cannot be denied merely due to a clerical error in mentioning the wrong GSTIN in invoices when the transaction is genuine and no double credit is claimed.
B. Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025: DHC:1656-DB W.P. (C) 114/2025 & CM Appl. 434/2025) 1. Brief Facts The Petitioner claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchases where invoices reflected an incorrect GSTIN (Bombay GSTIN instead of Delhi...
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP and upheld that the mandatory 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act can be made through the Electronic Credit Ledger where the dispute relates to output tax.
Union of India vs. Yasho Industries Ltd. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 17547/2025) 1. Brief Facts The Assessee, Yasho Industries Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 against an assessment order. As required under Section 107(6)(b),...