High Court of Madras5 June 2026

Tvl. Punitha Antony Store v. State Tax Officer

For assesseeRemanded

W.P(MD) NO.14984 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where penalty equals to 100 percent of tax was imposed under Section 74 for alleged fraud though penalty only of 50 percent of tax under Section 74A was statutorily leviable, as provisions invoked had led to a higher penalty and materially altered liability, such error was not curable as a mere misquotation; impugned penalty order was to be quashed and fresh proceedings was to be initiated under correct provision

Provisions considered

Section 74, read with sections 74A and 160, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu 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 Agra17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jitendra Kumar v. R.V. Brick Field

Where survey at brick kilns revealed excess or unaccounted bricks and coal not recorded in books and persons present failed to produce documents, initiation of confiscation proceedings with penalty and fine under section 130 was impermissible, as proper procedure required tax determination as if supplied under section 35(6) read with sections 73 and 74, rendering confiscation unsustainable GST: Where excess or unaccounted stock found at respondents' brick kilns led to confiscation and penalty orders, and Commissioner (Appeals) quashed both confiscation and penalty due to lack of legal basis, revenue's appeals confined only to fine could not be sustained in absence of a surviving confiscation, rendering such appeals meritless and not maintainable

GSTAT Bengaluru15 Sept 2026

For assessee

Conduent Business Services India LLP v. Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru East Gst Commissionerate

Where an assessee made pre-SCN payment of tax and interest for excess ITC and irregular TRAN-1 credit found in audit and there was no evidence of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression with intent, penalty under fraud provisions was not sustainable as mere audit detection does not amount to suppression, and voluntary payment warranted immunity from penalty under general provisions

Delhi High Court9 Jul 2026

For revenue

Sunil Chauhan Prop of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North

Where petitioner, a proprietor engaged in trading agro-chemical products, was issued SCN for mis-declaration, undervaluation and clandestine clearance leading to demand of tax, interest and penalties, proper officer adjudicating tax liability from SCN was also competent to impose all consequential penalties in same adjudication as statute does not require separate proceedings, showing no jurisdictional error

Tvl. Punitha Antony Store v. State Tax Officer

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Tvl. Punitha Antony Store v. State Tax Officer

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Jitendra Kumar v. R.V. Brick Field

Conduent Business Services India LLP v. Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru East Gst Commissionerate

Sunil Chauhan Prop of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North

Read the full analysis