GST Appellate Tribunal, Ghaziabad17 September 2026

Raghvendra Vikram Singh v. Technomat Composheet (P.) Ltd

For assessee

The ruling in brief

Where State Tax Department filed appeal against penalty order relating solely to e-way bill penalty of Rs. 88,074, since disputed penalty amount was below prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit and no recognised exception or reasoned exercise of residual power was shown, appeal was rightly dismissed at threshold for failing monetary limit and absence of case-specific justification

Provisions considered

Section 120, read with section 112, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh 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

Gauhati High Court3 Aug 2026

For revenue

Gias Uddin Ahmed v. Union of India

Where DGGI officer issued a consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice covering multiple financial years under CGST regime and petitioners challenged permissibility of such consolidation after not filing a reply, since law as per Tata Projects Ltd. permits consolidated notices and adjudication for multiple periods, writ challenge to such consolidated notice was not maintainable. GST: Where petitioners received consolidated show cause notice for tax or ITC not involving fraud and failed to reply before seeking writ remedy nearly a year later, since initiation under general or fraud-based provisions is fact-specific and determination of fraud requires factual examination, writ jurisdiction was not maintainable at notice stage and parties must pursue statutory adjudication and appeals

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

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.…

Related rulings

Gauhati High Court3 Aug 2026

For revenue

Raghvendra Vikram Singh v. Technomat Composheet (P.) Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Raghvendra Vikram Singh v. Technomat Composheet (P.) Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Gias Uddin Ahmed v. Union of India

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

Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax

Read the full analysis