Skip to content
TAXKATHA

Insights • Analysis • Summary

Tax rulings, made simple. Decisions made smarter.

TaxKatha reads every significant GST and tax ruling and distils it into a clear summary — so you can find the point, understand the decision and act with confidence.

Get Started Explore Case Laws
670
rulings summarised
50
courts and tribunals
29 Sept
latest decision, 2026

From the Supreme Court

The latest word from the top court

All case laws
For revenue

Supreme Court of India

Matrix Cellular (international) Services (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, State Tax, Delhi

SLP dismissed against review petition of High Court holding that where assessee withdrew refund application after issuance of deficiency memo and later sought interest for that disputed period in review petition on ground of error apparent, as no error or mistake was found in earlier judgment denying interest for that period, review petition was not maintainable and not considered on merits

Read the ruling

Supreme Court

For assessee

Union of India v. Aculife Healthcare (P.) Ltd

SLP was filed against impugned order of High Court holding that where refund granted to assessee on export of goods was sought to be demanded under Rule 96(10), since Notification No. 20-2024, dated 8-10-2024 was issued during pendency of appeal filed by assessee against such demand, whereby Rule 96(10) was omitted, proceedings of order in original as well as order passed by appellate authority were to be set aside; instant court held issues were squarely covered by Goodluck India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. and dismissed SLP

0

Supreme Court

For revenue

Manpar Icon Technologies v. Assistant Commissioner CGST Division

SLP was filed against order of High Court holding that where assessee assailed demand order and corrigendum to SCN including additional period in writ alleging illegality, since such issues involved factual examination of corrections under sections 160 and 161 and were already considered by adjudicating authority, in view of available alternate remedy of appeal, writ was not maintainable and petition was to be dismissed with liberty to avail appellate remedy; SC declined to interfere with HC order dismissing writ for alternative remedy and extended limitation, SLP was to be disposed of

0

Trending this week

What the profession is reading

Ranked by what members read, save, discuss and share.

See them all
  1. For assesseeRemanded

    Madras High Court

    Bhima Enterprises v. Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

    Where search authorization issued in respect of petitioner partnership firm under Section 67(2) lacked DIN with only a generic assertion of technical difficulty and no contemporaneous record, and DIN was neither timely generated nor communicated to noticee, mandatory requirements of DIN display, contemporaneous recording of exception, regularization, and sharing with noticee were breached, rendering authorization non-compliant; authorities to initiate fresh proceeding

    0likes0comments

  2. For revenue

    Gujarat High Court

    Mahalaxmi Industries v. Union of India

    Where petitioner challenged order confirming fake ITC demand involving same SCN and identical modus operandi as connected entity, with both operating from same address and similar allegations, statutory appeal remedy was available, making writ jurisdiction not maintainable, and writ petition was rightly rejected in favour of statutory appellate process

    0likes0comments

  3. For revenue

    Delhi High Court

    Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

    Where petitioner distributor of medicines challenged show cause notice and appropriation of amount deposited during audit on grounds of coercion, limitation, computation, and jurisdiction, since statutory adjudication had commenced and SCN did not finally determine liability, all objections including voluntariness of payment and other contentions could be raised before Adjudicating Authority and interference at SCN stage was unwarranted

    0likes0comments

  4. For assessee

    GSTAT Raipur

    Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax

    Where scrutiny of e-way bills and subsequent proceedings led to disputed liability for two invoices, and Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief for one invoice (GST-1399) and sustained demand for another (GST-125), with respondent not challenging relief on GST-1399 before Tribunal, only GST-125 remained in controversy, leaving relief on GST-1399 undisturbed and outside Tribunal’s purview. GST: Where assessee, accused of duplicate e-way bill generation and non-payment, specifically requested a personal hearing and submitted defence, adjudicating authority confirmed demand without granting post-reply hearing or giving reasoned decision, such order violated statutory mandate for opportunity of hearing and duty to record reasons, hence original adjudication was vitiated for non-compliance with legal requirements. GST: Where dispute survived for single invoice with two e-way bills for same vehicle, non-cancellation was admitted and no primary records or evidence were produced to prove asserted system glitch, appellate proceedings could not cure breach of statutory personal hearing at original stage, warranting limited remand for fresh determination after affording statutory hearing and considering primary evidence. GST: Where demand was confirmed on duplicate e-way bills against same invoice with unpaid tax alleged, and cancellation of the second e-way bill was raised in appeal, reference by appellate authority to statutory cancellation mechanism did not introduce a new ground, since existence and non-use of cancellation window was relevant to assess appellant's defence of unintentional duplication.…

    0likes0comments

  5. For revenue

    Delhi High Court

    Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

    Where developer of residential project was charged with profiteering on computation of ITC benefit for homebuyers, DGAP on remand quantified benefit using purchase value against project cost and area-wise distribution, conforming with remand directions and distinct from methodology earlier rejected, no breach of jurisdiction or legal error arose thus, no interference with GSTAT order upholding DGAP report was warranted GST: Where anti-profiteering assessment for petitioner’s project compared actual post-GST ITC including goods and services with NIL pre-GST availed credit as per ST-3 returns, and petitioner admitted non-availment of eligible pre-GST CENVAT on services, calculation based on actual availment rather than entitlement was correct and exclusion of services ITC from computation was unjustified GST: Where petitioner challenged anti-profiteering computation on grounds of increased GST rate and argued rate-led ITC was not a benefit, authorities upheld DGAP's project-level saving and base profiteering methodology as fair, reasonable, and responsive to project features, finding no error in quantification or ground to interfere with GSTAT affirmation, recalculation demands for actual economic benefit under Section 171 was to be rejected GST: Where DGAP's methodology included GST at 12 percent on base profiteered amount for a builder's project by treating GST collected on excess realization as part of profiteering, such quantified inclusion was lawful and aligned with precedent, and no illegality in GST addition was found, hence no basis for writ interference on this aspect GST: Where homebuyers of residential project raised profiteering complaint and GST authoriti…

    0likes0comments

  6. For assessee

    GSTAT Bengaluru

    JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. v. State GST Karnataka

    Where consignor's goods were detained solely for e-way bill expiry due to a software error misreading destination, though all documents including correct invoices and lorry receipt were available, tax was charged and physical verification revealed no discrepancies or intent to evade, invoking detention and penalty under section 129 for this procedural lapse was invalid and demands were unsustainable

    0likes0comments

  7. For assessee

    GSTAT Lucknow

    Satyendra Singh v. L and T Technology Services Ltd

    Where assessee availed ITC on supplies from a vendor whose GST registration was retrospectively cancelled and limited ITC was allowed by appellate authority based on specific invoice entries and subsequent portal amendments, since no evidence established that supplies were not received or invoices were fictitious, thus in absence of legal or factual infirmity appeal against first appellate order was to be dismissed

    0likes0comments

  8. For assessee

    GSTAT Agra

    Neeraj Shukla v. Jay Steels

    Where consignment of used iron was transported with valid invoice and bilty but without e-way bill on 24 November 2017, since e-way bill requirement for inter- State movement was not mandatory on that date and no evasion intent was found, detention and penalty imposed were unsustainable and revenue's appeal was to be dismissed

    0likes0comments

Browse by subject

Find the ruling by the question it answers

Every summary is filed under its subject, the sections it turns on and the forum that decided it.

All 28 topics

Why TaxKatha

We read the judgment so you can act on it

TaxKatha understands the complexity so you don’t have to.

670
rulings summarised

Accuracy first.

50
courts and tribunals covered

Built around clarity.

72%
of decided rulings favoured the assessee

Designed for confident decisions.

How it works

  1. 01

    Search the ruling

    By party, section, court or subject — across every forum we cover.

  2. 02

    Read the distilled summary

    The point of the decision in a paragraph, then the background and reasoning.

  3. 03

    Discuss with professionals

    See how CAs, advocates and tax teams read the same ruling.

  4. 04

    Share the insight

    Send a clean, branded summary to a client or your network in one tap.

Free calculators

Tax and money, worked out

Income tax under both regimes, GST, HRA, EMIs, SIPs and savings schemes — on the current rules, with the working shown.

All 19 calculators

Free for members

Your next ruling shouldn’t be a surprise.

Get clarity, confidence and control over every decision that touches your practice. Join to read the full analysis and the discussion.

Get Started Explore Case Laws

Sign in with Google, LinkedIn or Microsoft. No card required.