GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru25 August 2026

Rodman Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Karnataka State GST, Bengaluru

For revenue

The ruling in brief

Where excess ITC was availed for first time in December 2020 and demand under section 73 arose from such availment, assessee could not claim waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A merely by contending that disputed ITC pertained to earlier period 2018-19, as demand was outside temporal scope of section 128A

Provisions considered

CGST S.128A

Section 128A of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Karnataka 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

Punjab & Haryana High Court9 Sept 2026

For revenue

Dhull Earth Movers Co. v. Union of India

Where registered person deposited self-assessed tax belatedly and interest was demanded by authority without initiation of section 73 proceedings, waiver of interest under section 128A was not available since circular permitted waiver only where section 73 was invoked, and self-assessed tax interest liability under section 50 read with section 75(12) was directly recoverable with no scope for waiver in such cases. GST: Where petitioner sought waiver of interest for delayed deposit of self-assessed tax citing discrimination under Article 14, since benefit under waiver scheme applied only to disputed tax arising from section 73 proceedings and not to self-assessed tax, classification between disputed and self-assessed tax was valid, denial of waiver to petitioner was justified and Article 14 challenge was not sustainable

Madras High Court19 Aug 2026

For revenueRemanded

Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Where petitioner discharged entire admitted tax before notified date but missed prescribed time limit for amnesty scheme application seeking waiver of interest and penalty, such time limit is mandatory and not directory, yet, in interest of justice, due to full tax payment and revenue protection, ex parte order was set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration after granting reasonable opportunity

Madras High Court31 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Indian Bank v. Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise

Where petitioner with registrations in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra received a combined section 73 order and sought waiver of interest or penalty via single SPL-02 under section 128A(1)(b) after tax payment, proper officer could not decline jurisdiction for Maharashtra alone as same officer issued combined order and no statutory basis exists to split jurisdiction, requiring reconsideration

Related rulings

Punjab & Haryana High Court9 Sept 2026

For revenue

Rodman Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Karnataka State GST, Bengaluru

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Rodman Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Karnataka State GST, Bengaluru

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Dhull Earth Movers Co. v. Union of India

Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Indian Bank v. Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise

Read the full analysis