GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata25 August 2026

Lux Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax

For assessee

INTL.APPL NOS. 1 TO 21 (KLK) OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where applicants filed interlocutory applications for early hearing of 21 appeals before GSTAT citing substantial financial prejudice caused by denial of refund and pendency, with all procedural prerequisites fulfilled and respondents raising no objection to early listing, applicants established a compelling case for priority hearing and their applications for early hearing were to be accordingly allowed

Provisions considered

Section 112, read with section 111, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 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

GSTAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2026

For revenue

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate

Where appellant, as Managing Director, faced personal penalty of Rs 25,000 each under section 122(3) for two company units and total amount determined against appellant did not exceed Rs 50,000, Tribunal exercised statutory discretion to refuse admission as threshold requirement was not met, resulting in dismissal of appeal

CGST S.112

GSTAT Ghaziabad17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Devendra Singh v. Adroit Technical Services (P.) Ltd

Where department filed appeal where GST amount in dispute was only Rs. 1.99 lakh while monetary threshold limit set for filing appeal by relevant circulars is Rs. 20 lak, since Revenue failed to prove any exception that would allow a low-value claim to proceed, appeal was to be dismissed at threshold without adjudication on merits

GSTAT Ghaziabad17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Prabhas Kumar v. Radico, Authorized Partners

Departmental appeal involving disputed tax of about Rs. 6.30 lakh was liable to dismissal at threshold, as Circulars dated 05-07-2024 and 22-05-2026 prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit and furthe, Revenue had failed to establish any exception; administrative authorisation could not override binding litigation policy

Lux Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Lux Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate

Devendra Singh v. Adroit Technical Services (P.) Ltd

Prabhas Kumar v. Radico, Authorized Partners

Read the full analysis