High Court of Madras17 September 2026

Safelane Agencies v. Superintendent of GST and C.Ex

For assesseeRemanded

WP NOS. 23824 AND 23848 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where assessment order and DRC-7 confirmed tax demand exceeding SCN and failed to account for IGST already belatedly paid via GSTR-3B with DRC-7 ignoring such appropriation, demand confirmation was beyond SCN scope and, subject to partial remittance by petitioner, assessment order was set aside for reconsideration post issue of fresh SCN.

Where petitioner sought cancellation of GST registration due to business discontinuation and authorities rejected application solely for outstanding tax demand, discontinuation constitutes a valid statutory ground for cancellation and outstanding dues can be recovered post-cancellation, so rejection solely on demand grounds was untenable and authorities must reconsider cancellation as per law

Provisions considered

Section 75 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 29 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu 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

Calcutta High Court24 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal

Where tax, interest and penalty demands were raised via SCN and order uploaded only on portal without direct intimation and reply was filed but no personal hearing was afforded before passing ex parte order, principles of natural justice were breached, requiring the adjudication to be quashed and matter reconsidered after granting effective hearing

Delhi High Court22 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST

Where registered person was issued adverse order in Form DRC-07 without being given personal hearing, statutory mandate required hearing either on request or whenever adverse decision was contemplated, such order passed without personal hearing was unsustainable and was set aside with directions for fresh decision after affording effective personal hearing

Andhra Pradesh High Court21 Sept 2026

For assessee

Saptagiri Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Where registered taxpayer supplying works contract services to Government Departments was subjected to a single composite assessment order covering multiple years, such composite assessment was impermissible, so the impugned summary order was set aside and respondents could initiate fresh proceedings for each assessment year separately, with all consequential proceedings revoked

CGST S.75

Safelane Agencies v. Superintendent of GST and C.Ex

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Safelane Agencies v. Superintendent of GST and C.Ex

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal

Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST

Saptagiri Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Read the full analysis