High Court of Karnataka10 June 2026

State of Karnataka v. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders A Sole Proprietorship

For revenue

WRIT APPEAL NO. 718 OF 2025 (T-RES)

The ruling in brief

Contractual entitlement to reimbursement of incremental GST cannot alter statutory GST provisions and GST authorities cannot be directed to permit revised returns or waive interest, penalty, or limitation on that basis; such reimbursement dispute lies only between contractor and employer

Provisions considered

Section 73, read with Sections 9 and 108, 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.

Related rulings

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

GSTAT Raipur24 Sept 2026

For revenue

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

Where manufacturer claimed refund of unutilised ITC due to inverted duty structure and was sanctioned amount exceeding entitlement under Section 54 read with Rule 89(5), such payment qualified as refund and, if in excess, constituted an 'erroneous refund' recoverable under Section 73, without exclusion based on ITC origin, as confirmed by subsequent rule and circular. GST: Where assessee received refund on inverted-duty structure via RFD-06 order and department did not appeal or seek revision, initiation of recovery proceedings for erroneous refund under Section 73 was permissible as Section 73 operates independently with its own notice and limitation, and non-invocation of appeal or revision mechanisms does not bar such recovery action. GST: Where appellant received erroneous refund of Rs. 90.35 lakhs on inverted-duty structure and paid back principal amount during recovery proceedings without paying interest, interest under Section 50 at 18 percent per annum for delayed period was legally leviable as interest is compensatory, and mere payment of principal did not conclude liability or proceedings under Section 73

CGST S.73

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

Related rulings

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

GSTAT Raipur24 Sept 2026

For revenue

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

CGST S.73

Calcutta High Court24 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

State of Karnataka v. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders A Sole Proprietorship

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

State of Karnataka v. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders A Sole Proprietorship

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal