High Court of Madras28 August 2026

Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)

For assessee

WP NOS. 21432, 21433 & 22392 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner was denied ITC on inputs used for construction of property intended for lease or license on grounds of blocked credit for immovable property, and Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 where construction is for own use or as builder's business premises, orders made without considering said principle required fresh evaluation and same were to be set aside

Where revenue recovered amounts from electronic cash and credit ledgers without issuing pre-recovery intimation in FORM GST DRC-01D and without allowing statutory 7 days for payment, such recovery violated Rule 142B and statutory recovery scheme, especially as assessment orders had been set aside, entitling petitioner to restoration of all such debited amounts

Provisions considered

Section 17 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 79, read with section 54, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 142B of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu 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

Provisions considered

Related rulings

Supreme Court21 Sept 2026

For revenue

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

Calcutta High Court27 Aug 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner

Where assessee proved possession of invoices, receipt of goods, and payment, denial of input tax credit solely due to supplier's default in GST deposit and non-reflection in GSTR-2A was unsustainable in absence of collusion, and department ought first to proceed against defaulting supplier, making impugned recovery from assessee without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed GST: Where notice invoking section 74 was issued for raising demand in respect of alleged ineligible or excess ITC for 2018-19 solely on bare assertions of fraud or wilful misstatement without particulars, and reply with supporting documents was not addressed, such notice was ex facie time-barred under section 73(10), recourse to extended limitation was without jurisdiction and proceedings were liable to be quashed

GSTAT Kolkata20 Aug 2026

For assessee

Principal Commissioner Of CGST v. Agarwala’s Bitumex (P.) Ltd

Refund of accumulated ITC claimed on export of goods could not be denied merely on basis of absence of toll plaza movements where goods were supplied under Bill To Ship To model and E way Bills, bilty copies, shipping bills, EGM details, transporter's certificate and bank statements established transportation and export; toll plaza receipts were not mandatory documents

Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

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

Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner

Principal Commissioner Of CGST v. Agarwala’s Bitumex (P.) Ltd

Read the full analysis