Case laws · TaxKatha

Telangana High Court25 Jun 2026

For revenue

Bengal Cold Rollers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Where petitioner challenged SCN and OIO on ground that a gap of six-months between SCN and OIO was not maintained and also there was violation of earlier liberty to file reply, maintaining a gap of six-month period was merely directory; since repeated opportunities for reply and hearing were given, and OIO was passed within limitation period, challenge on account of not maintaining time gap did not vitiate proceedings. GST: Where petitioner alleged denial of effective hearing as order was issued within five days of last hearing, since records showed multiple notices, repeated reminders, a videographed hearing, and supply of seized records, there was substantial compliance with statutory hearing requirements; no prejudice being caused from a shorter gap, making statutory appeal instead of filing writ was proper remedy. GST: Where petitioner challenged OIO and SCN by filing writ petition despite Supreme Court's order relegating to statutory appeal with pre-deposit, since no exceptional ground was established, adequate opportunity was given, OIO was within limitation, and time-limit plea was not raised earlier, writ petition was not entertainable; lliberty was to be given to pursue statutory appellate remedy

Telangana High Court25 Jun 2026

For revenue

Bengal Cold Rollers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Orissa High Court25 Jun 2026

For revenue

Prafulla Kumar Mohanty v. Additional Commissioner, CT & GST (Appeal)

Where adjudication order under section 74 was affirmed in first appeal and petitioner sought writ on grounds of absence of appellate forum, later notification constituted GSTAT with extended deadlines, making writ remedy unavailable since statutory appellate mechanism was operational, requiring petitioner to comply with prescribed appeal process and deposit requirements under section 112

Madras High Court23 Jun 2026

For revenue

S. Thiruvenkadam v. Commissioner of Municipal Administration

Commercial exploitation of market-fee collection rights obtained through public auction was not exempt from GST as a municipal function, since petitioner was not a local authority; tender conditions required payment of taxes, and COVID-period lease waiver could not be claimed as of right while statutory dues remained unpaid

Madras High Court23 Jun 2026

For revenue

Renaatus Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate General of gst Intelligence, Chennai

Where GST-registered contractor in Tamil Nadu executed a construction contract for Supreme Court building at Port Louis, Mauritius under Government of India grant and SCN was issued alleging supply linkage with India based on procurement and financial consolidation, writ to quash SCN was premature as alleged lack of jurisdiction was not patent but required factual examination; so writ appeal was to be dismissed

Madras High Court23 Jun 2026

For revenue

VRAA and Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Where a firm’s unchallenged tax dues had crystallised and a partner’s account was attached through a garnishee notice issued under Section 79(1)(c)(i), action against the partner’s bank account was permissible since partners are liable for firm’s dues, and challenge based on Section 83 provisional attachment was unfounded, hence no ground for interference arose

Gujarat High Court18 Jun 2026

For revenue

Shivani Enterprise v. Union of India

Where assessee engaged in scrap trading faced proceedings for alleged fraudulent ITC and challenged adequacy of show cause notice and opportunity on grounds of incomplete notice and misdescription, no breach of natural justice was established as adequate opportunity was given, SCN errors were typographical, and relevant relied upon documents for two periods were available, thus writ petition was to be rejected

Gujarat High Court17 Jun 2026

For revenue

Manoj Ramkishan Agrawal v. Union of India

Where petitioners, partners of a trading firm were found complicit in generating fake invoices and e-way bills without actual supply, with admissions and forensic evidence linking them to hawala operations and cash returns, penalty was rightly imposed vide order passed under section 122 as their knowledge and consent was established, and absence of natural justice breach made writ interference unwarranted

Madras High Court17 Jun 2026

For revenue

Jayashree Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Where assessee was found to have availed and utilized ineligible ITC due to discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, interest under specific provision at 24 percent was rightly imposed from date of utilization till reversal, as utilization through credit ledger attracted liability regardless of cash payment argument, rendering general interest provisions inapplicable and justifying impugned order

Madras High Court16 Jun 2026

For revenue

V. Damayanti v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise

Where legal heir of deceased proprietor whose business was discontinued and GST registration cancelled was issued demand for tax, interest and penalty for non-filing of returns relating to period prior to death, recovery could proceed against legal heir under liability provisions, with adjudication permissible post-death, but liability restricted only to extent of inherited estate

Karnataka High Court15 Jun 2026

For revenue

Mahadevappa v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax

Where petitioner obtained GST registration at premise owned by wife on strength of a registered GPA but registration was suspended and cancelled on complaint filed by wife, statutory authorities were required to adjudicate registration issue as dispute over authority between spouses did not oust statutory mechanism; since section 107 provided effective appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked

Karnataka High Court15 Jun 2026

For revenueRemanded

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. PMJ Constructions (P.) Ltd

Where contractor sought reimbursement of increased tax liability after GST implementation under pre-GST contract with BBMP, but agreement required submission of proof of tax payment and GST law did not require certification by tax authorities, quantification without verification was improper and matter was to be decided after contractor submitted requisite documents to BBMP Commissioner

Madras High Court12 Jun 2026

For revenue

KPR Enterprises v. State Tax Officer

Where petitioner engaged in sale of rock boulders was found to have under-declared turnover when compared to high seigniorage fees during relevant periods, and escaped turnover was estimated using National Standard Method, issuance of notice and extended limitation under Section 74 was justified based on prima facie material, rendering challenge to limitation and procedure meritless