High Court of Rajasthan20 August 2026

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

For assessee

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12145 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner’s statutory appeal delay was due to non-communication by CA not attributable to petitioner, and refusal to consider appeal on merits would cause serious prejudice, delay in filing was condoned and Appellate Authority was directed to hear appeal on merits

Provisions considered

CGST S.107

Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Rajasthan 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.

Related rulings

GSTAT Raipur24 Sept 2026

For revenue

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

Where manufacturer claimed refund of unutilised ITC due to inverted duty structure and was sanctioned amount exceeding entitlement under Section 54 read with Rule 89(5), such payment qualified as refund and, if in excess, constituted an 'erroneous refund' recoverable under Section 73, without exclusion based on ITC origin, as confirmed by subsequent rule and circular. GST: Where assessee received refund on inverted-duty structure via RFD-06 order and department did not appeal or seek revision, initiation of recovery proceedings for erroneous refund under Section 73 was permissible as Section 73 operates independently with its own notice and limitation, and non-invocation of appeal or revision mechanisms does not bar such recovery action. GST: Where appellant received erroneous refund of Rs. 90.35 lakhs on inverted-duty structure and paid back principal amount during recovery proceedings without paying interest, interest under Section 50 at 18 percent per annum for delayed period was legally leviable as interest is compensatory, and mere payment of principal did not conclude liability or proceedings under Section 73

GSTAT Raipur24 Sept 2026

Cheema Local Carrier and Construction v. Commissioner State GST

Where appellants challenged ex parte orders based on allegedly seized evidence and appellate authority dismissed appeals through identical, non-reasoned orders without dealing with seven distinct grounds or cited authorities, such non- speaking orders failed to exercise appellate jurisdiction and breached principles of natural justice, thus, considering foundational infirmities and ensuring fair opportunity, matter was to be remanded to original adjudicating authorities

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax

Where appellant, a lender of housing loans, faced demand for GST on loan recoveries but invoked exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CTR Entry 27 for first time before Tribunal, exemption applied as pure legal plea could be raised at any stage and recovery of loan amounts qualified as exempt service under Entry 27 GST: Where a housing loan lender claimed that receipts treated as taxable supply were actually recoveries of principal from written-off housing loan accounts and supported this with bank records showing deposits and SARFAESI charges, failure by revenue to consider admissible certified evidence warranted remand for production and consideration of such documents for just determination of exemption claim

Related rulings

GSTAT Raipur24 Sept 2026

For revenue

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

Cheema Local Carrier and Construction v. Commissioner State GST

Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax

Read the full analysis