GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram21 August 2026

Santhome Latex Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST

For assessee

APPEAL NO. APL/21/TVP/2026

The ruling in brief

Where assessee faced SCN alleging ineligible ITC based on suppression for multiple years, but there was no proof of fraud, willful misstatement, or contumacious intent, and statutory reconciliations were properly disclosed, mere availment of self-assessed ineligible ITC did not amount to suppression, so demands under section 74 could not be sustained and appeal was allowed.

Where SCN under section 74(1) alleged suppression due to ineligible ITC but did not mention non-reply to audit queries or final audit report and Revenue for first time in appeal raised failure to furnish audit information, such new ground violated natural justice as it lacked specificity, proof of willful suppression, or statutory foundation, rendering appellate reversal unsustainable and assessee's appeals allowable

Provisions considered

Section 74, read with section 42, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 74, read with section 65, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala 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

Delhi High Court12 Aug 2026

For revenue

Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India

Where taxpayer challenged administrative transfer of audit file from Audit Wing to Anti-Evasion Wing within same Commissionerate citing authority and audit timeline grounds, such transfer was administrative in nature, not barred by statute, and interference was unwarranted as petitioner could raise all related objections before Adjudicating Authority, especially since transfer followed repeated non- compliance by petitioner

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

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication

Related rulings

Delhi High Court12 Aug 2026

For revenue

Santhome Latex Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Santhome Latex Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India

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

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Read the full analysis