GST Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad2 September 2026

Shakti Industrial House v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II)

For revenue

The ruling in brief

Where appellant failed to cure registry defects regarding SCN uploading, court fee, respondent details, and did not appear for multiple scheduled hearings despite repeated opportunities, persistent non-compliance showed lack of interest in prosecuting appeal, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 42, supported by inherent powers to secure justice and prevent abuse, without examination of merits

Provisions considered

CGST S.111

Section 111 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Telangana 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

GSTAT Ghaziabad8 Sept 2026

For assessee

Adhunik Fire Appliances v. Himanshu

Where appellant providing fire-safety works contract services had GST registration cancelled, resulting in complete business paralysis and loss of livelihood, and sought exemption from ordinary Registry scrutiny for urgent Tribunal hearing, procedural rules preserving inherent power and intended to advance justice warranted urgent listing upon showing sufficient cause, without exempting any mandatory statutory requirements or affecting merit of appeal

CGST S.111

GSTAT Hyderabad4 Sept 2026

For revenue

Mandalaneni Srinivasarao v. Maa Engineering & Energy

Where departmental appeal challenged condonation of delay by First Appellate Authority and respondent sought abeyance or listing before Special Bench based on parallel taxpayer appeals, request was rejected since instant appeal was by department, not falling under category designated for Special Bench, and abeyance plea was not allowed, though additional submissions were permitted

GSTAT Kolkata25 Aug 2026

For assessee

Lux Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax

Where applicants filed interlocutory applications for early hearing of 21 appeals before GSTAT citing substantial financial prejudice caused by denial of refund and pendency, with all procedural prerequisites fulfilled and respondents raising no objection to early listing, applicants established a compelling case for priority hearing and their applications for early hearing were to be accordingly allowed

Shakti Industrial House v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II)

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Shakti Industrial House v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II)

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Adhunik Fire Appliances v. Himanshu

Mandalaneni Srinivasarao v. Maa Engineering & Energy

Lux Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax

Read the full analysis