High Court of Kerala15 July 2026

Bhima Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner-1

For assessee

WP(C) NO. 14377 OF 2022 & 10098 OF 2024

The ruling in brief

Where gold jewelry trader omitted certain stock-transfer transactions in returns for April to June 2017 and sought revision, rejection solely for want of statutory audit was unsustainable as where a request was made even before initiation of assessment or penalty proceeding, such request was to be accepted

Where assessee effected inter-state stock transfers of gold jewelry during April to June 2017 and faced GST demand due to alleged absence of proof of goods' re- entry into Kerala, since revision of KVAT returns for that period was permitted, consequential GST demand orders were to be set aside, leaving further proceedings to depend on results of revised returns

Provisions considered

Section 42, read with section 25(1) of Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003; Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003

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

GSTAT Raipur28 Sept 2026

For assessee

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.…

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

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Vertilink Media Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Anti Evasion Branch

Where DGGI initiated proceedings for ITC fraud against multiple noticees including petitioner while a separate proceeding was initiated by State GST officer against petitioner for denial of ITC due to non-payment of tax by supplier, bar on parallel proceedings did not apply as proceedings addressed distinct subject matters; mere commonality in petitioner, period, or transactions was insufficient to constitute identity of subject matter. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, subsequent conclusion of DGGI proceedings did not extinguish independent demand raised by State GST officer on separate statutory grounds; absence of recovery in DGGI proceedings did not retrospectively invalidate separate proceedings concerning short payment and ITC ineligibility. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, where petitioner was only a co-noticee in DGGI proceedings and no penalty, tax, or interest was imposed on petitioner in that matter, proceedings by State GST officer for ame act would not attract bar against penalty, as protection applies only if prior penalty on petitioner for same act is established and shown

Related rulings

GSTAT Raipur28 Sept 2026

For assessee

Bhima Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner-1

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Bhima Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner-1

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Vertilink Media Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Anti Evasion Branch

Read the full analysis