High Court of Madras19 August 2026

Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

For revenueRemanded

WP NO. 31773 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner discharged entire admitted tax before notified date but missed prescribed time limit for amnesty scheme application seeking waiver of interest and penalty, such time limit is mandatory and not directory, yet, in interest of justice, due to full tax payment and revenue protection, ex parte order was set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration after granting reasonable opportunity

Provisions considered

Section 128A, read with Section 50, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 164 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Related rulings

Telangana High Court10 Sept 2026

For revenue

Sri Uma Manpower Suppliers v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax

Where tax liability declared in GSTR-1 for December 2018 was discharged only upon filing GSTR-3B in October 2019 though corresponding amount had already been deposited in Electronic Cash Ledger, mere deposit was held not to constitute payment as appropriation occurred only upon debit towards identified liability, consequently intervening period was liable to interest and plea of portal glitches being unsubstantiated did not alter statutory consequence

Punjab & Haryana High Court9 Sept 2026

For revenue

Dhull Earth Movers Co. v. Union of India

Where registered person deposited self-assessed tax belatedly and interest was demanded by authority without initiation of section 73 proceedings, waiver of interest under section 128A was not available since circular permitted waiver only where section 73 was invoked, and self-assessed tax interest liability under section 50 read with section 75(12) was directly recoverable with no scope for waiver in such cases. GST: Where petitioner sought waiver of interest for delayed deposit of self-assessed tax citing discrimination under Article 14, since benefit under waiver scheme applied only to disputed tax arising from section 73 proceedings and not to self-assessed tax, classification between disputed and self-assessed tax was valid, denial of waiver to petitioner was justified and Article 14 challenge was not sustainable

GSTAT Bengaluru25 Aug 2026

For revenue

Rodman Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Karnataka State GST, Bengaluru

Where excess ITC was availed for first time in December 2020 and demand under section 73 arose from such availment, assessee could not claim waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A merely by contending that disputed ITC pertained to earlier period 2018-19, as demand was outside temporal scope of section 128A

CGST S.128A

Related rulings

Telangana High Court10 Sept 2026

For revenue

CGST S.128A

Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Sri Uma Manpower Suppliers v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax

Dhull Earth Movers Co. v. Union of India

Rodman Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Karnataka State GST, Bengaluru