High Court of Kerala10 September 2026

Asterlakshya Builders and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

For assessee

WP(C) NO. 32954 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

Where consolidated show cause notice, order, and DRC-01A were issued by authorities covering multiple years in a single composite proceeding, prior rulings establish such proceedings as impermissible, necessitating separate year-wise notices, resulting in quashing of composite SCN, order, and DRC-01A with liberty to initiate fresh year-wise proceedings within revised limitation period

Provisions considered

Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Delhi High Court29 Sept 2026

For revenue

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

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication

Calcutta High Court24 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal

Where tax, interest and penalty demands were raised via SCN and order uploaded only on portal without direct intimation and reply was filed but no personal hearing was afforded before passing ex parte order, principles of natural justice were breached, requiring the adjudication to be quashed and matter reconsidered after granting effective hearing

Related rulings

Delhi High Court29 Sept 2026

For revenue

Asterlakshya Builders and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Asterlakshya Builders and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

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

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal

Read the full analysis