High Court of Karnataka10 August 2026

Shakti Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax

For assessee

WRIT PETITION NO. 1913 OF 2026 (T-RES)

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner, after transitioning valid CENVAT credit into Electronic Credit Ledger, discharged appeal pre-deposit by debiting this credit, such payment constituted valid compliance as there was no statutory mandate restricting mode to cash, and CBIC administrative instruction could not override statutory provisions or vested credit rights, thus Tribunal’s rejection of such pre-deposit ground was unsustainable and same was to be quashed

Provisions considered

Section 140, read with sections 49 and 107, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position

Rajasthan High Court20 Aug 2026

For assessee

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

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

CGST S.107

GSTAT Bengaluru31 Aug 2026

For assessee

N.R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Where assessee claimed ITC on 2017-18 invoices in 2018-19 which matched legal timeline, and denial was based only on GSTR-2A non-reflection without verifying supplier payment or invoices, such denial was unsustainable because GSTR-2A was merely facilitative and demand could not be sustained without proper invoice-wise verification as per statutory circular GST: Where assessee was proceeded for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B versus GSTR- 2A mismatch and Order-in-Original was passed without granting personal hearing as required when adverse decision was contemplated, absence of such hearing itself vitiated order, rendering it unsustainable in law and necessitating its setting aside GST: Where assessee faced demand for excess ITC based on GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A mismatch, and proceedings were initiated directly based on audit reference with proper demand notices but without scrutiny notice in ASMT-10, absence of ASMT-10 notice did not invalidate proceedings as demand initiation was independent of return scrutiny, thus, issue was answered against assessee