Skip to content

Case Laws
Insights
Topics
Tools
About

Case-law directory

Every ruling, in plain sight.

Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.

Simplifying tax. Empowering you.

Clear, searchable summaries of Indian tax rulings — and a professional community to discuss what each decision means in practice.

Explore

Case laws
Insights
Topics
Courts

Tools

Income tax calculator
SIP calculator
EMI calculator
GST calculator
All calculators

Company

About
Contact

Legal

Privacy policy
Terms of use
Disclaimer

Summaries on TaxKatha are for general information only and do not constitute legal or tax advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on any ruling.

© 2026 TaxKatha. All rights reserved.

Case Laws
Insights
Topics
Tools
About

Search case laws

/

Forum

Supreme Court24 High Courts537 GSTAT89 Advance rulings19

Court or bench

Outcome

In favour of assessee457 In favour of revenue176 Partly allowed0 Matter remanded126

Topic

Demands & adjudication150 Appeals to Appellate Authority69 Input tax credit68 Registration58 Penalty & confiscation33 Refund33 Service of notices & orders30

Provision

CGST S.73
CGST S.74
CGST S.107
CGST S.75
CGST S.16
CGST S.169
CGST S.29
CGST S.54
CGST S.9
CGST S.30

More provisions

Decision date

FromTo

537 rulings found

Sort by

High CourtsRemove filter
Clear all

Karnataka High Court3 Jun 2026
For assesseeRemanded
GR Tech Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Where registered person paid IGST on transaction initially considered inter- State which was later found to be intra-State requiring CGST/KGST, original authority erred in demanding additional tax, interest, and penalty without proper adjustment or refund, necessitating quashing of demand orders and restoration for fresh adjudication in compliance with statutory provisions and refund rules

Appeals to Appellate Tribunal22

Anti-profiteering20

Arrest & bail16

Interest & waiver14

Levy & collection14

Recovery & attachment14

Supply & valuation14

Detention in transit12

Government contractors11

Offences & prosecution11

Classification & rate9

Officers & jurisdiction7

Search & seizure7

Transitional provisions5

Advance ruling3

Writs & constitutional remedies3

CGST S.77
CGST S.73
CGST S.79
CGST Rules R.92
+1

Madras High Court3 Jun 2026

For assessee

Noordeen Enterprises v. Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence

Where letters were issued to customers of respective petitioner directing diversion of amounts payable to petitioners towards alleged GST dues before any order-in-original determining liability was passed, such pre-assessment garnishee actions were invalid and unsustainable, with recovery only possible under section 79(1)(c) once liability was crystallized by order-in-original

CGST S.79
CGST S.83

Madras High Court2 Jun 2026

For revenue

Tvl. KPK fuel services v. State Tax Officer

Where petitioner failed to furnish annual return in Form GSTR-9 by due date, statutory late fee under section 47 was attracted, as it applies to both belated filing and non-filing, making the imposition of late fee and penalty valid and argument that late fee is not leviable for non-filing, untenable. GST: Where taxpayer failed to furnish annual return in Form GSTR-9 and was levied both late fee and general penalty, since no separate penalty was prescribed for such non-filing, general penalty under section 125 was applicable in addition to late fee, so levy of both was justified and challenge by taxpayer was rejected

CGST S.47
CGST S.44
CGST S.125

Meghalaya High Court2 Jun 2026

For revenue

Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd. v. Union of India

Where BOT (Annuity) road construction concessionaire challenged SCN and OIO alleging that GST demand on annuity post launch commercial operation of project and sought writ on grounds including jurisdiction and constitutional invalidity, since core disputes related to classification, exemption and composite supply, determination of which required determination of mixed question of facts and law and no grave jurisdictional or natural justice breaches were shown, writ petition was not maintainable and statutory appeal would be an efficacious alternate remedy. GST: Where petitioner, executing BOT (Annuity) Jorabat–Shillong NH-40 project, challenged DGGI and CGST officers’ jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate demand for GST on annuity, both Additional Director-DGGI and Additional Commissioner of CGST-Shillong were Proper Officers appointed and empowered under relevant notifications and statute to act under Sections 73 and 74; so jurisdictional challenge to their actions would fail

CGST S.107
CGST S.9
Constitution Art.226
CGST S.74
+2

Punjab & Haryana High Court2 Jun 2026

For assessee

Rohit Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab

Where proprietor of GST-registered iron and steel trading concern was arrested for wrongful ITC claims relying on documentary evidence, with judicial custody exceeding three-and-a-half months, further detention was unwarranted as investigation was based on documents, no flight risk or potential for evidence tampering existed and speedy trial rights demanded grant of bail subject to conditions

CGST S.132
CGST S.69
BNSS S.483
BNSS S.187

Kerala High Court2 Jun 2026

For assessee

Evm Motors and Vehicles India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Director

Where composite show cause notice was issued covering multiple financial years in a situation not involving fraud, such composite notice was impermissible as per settled law and had to be quashed, with liberty granted to issue separate notices for each relevant year, and limitation period to be computed accordingly

CGST S.73
CGST S.75

Kerala High Court2 Jun 2026

For revenue

Kammad Kutty P.K. v. State of Kerala

Where contractor, a registered taxpayer, executed works for government department and contract stipulated government would bear GST liability, statutory obligation to pay tax under CGST/KSGST remained with contractor, so writ petition challenging adjudication was not maintainable and contractual remedies could be pursued separately without affecting tax liability

CGST S.73
CGST S.9

Kerala High Court2 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Oyster Auto Body v. State Tax Officer

Where petitioner, a registered taxpayer, claimed ITC for April 2018 to March 2019 but was denied due to alleged delay in return filing, since statutory scheme under Section 16(5) allowed ITC if returns were furnished by 30.11.2021 and petitioner’s returns were so filed, denial was not justified and petitioner was entitled to claim ITC benefit if otherwise eligible

CGST S.16

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court2 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

New Kabady Shop v. State of Texes Department of Th. Its Commissioner

Where assessee filed appeal with one-day delay beyond condonable period due to sister's death and Appellate Authority rejected it as time- barred, though statute restricts condonation to one month, extraordinary writ power can remedy gross injustice, so delay was condoned, rejection order set aside and appeal restored for decision on merits to avoid harshness

CGST S.107
Constitution Art.226

Kerala High Court2 Jun 2026

For assessee

Banasura Eco Resorts (P.) Ltd. v. Intelligence Officer-Intelligence Unit-1

Where consolidated show cause notice and summary was issued under GST covering multiple financial years for demand not involving fraud, binding precedent required separate notices for each period and thus composite notice and summary were found unsustainable and quashed, but fresh notices for each period could be issued subject to exclusion of interim period for limitation computation

CGST S.73
CGST S.75
CGST Rules R.142

Kerala High Court2 Jun 2026

For assessee

Minimol Sabu v. State of Kerala

Where department issued a composite show cause notice and consolidated order covering multiple financial years for alleged tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite proceedings were invalid in light of Division Bench rulings and required quashing, with liberty to issue separate notices for each financial year, while all other contentions remained open

CGST S.73

Madras High Court1 Jun 2026

For assessee

Tvl. Kodeeswaran Jewellers v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Where assessment order was communicated solely by uploading on portal without other statutory modes and appellant, a small business, cited difficulty in accessing the portal, expectation to continuously monitor portal was unreasonable, thus, appellant was entitled to an extended opportunity to file appeal within fifteen days and have appeal decided on merits

CGST S.169
CGST S.107

Madras High Court1 Jun 2026

For assessee

Renganathan & Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

Where petitioner, a tobacco trader, only sprinkled jaggery water, shade dried and bulked raw tobacco without altering its essential character, such activity did not amount to manufacture and product remained unmanufactured tobacco classifiable under CETH 2401 20 90, not under 2403 99 10 or 2403 99 90; thus, higher cess was not applicable

CGST S.9

Gauhati High Court1 Jun 2026

For assessee

MD. Nekib Hussain v. Union of India

Where registration of petitioner was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months and petitioner missed revocation period because of portal restriction but agreed to furnish all pending returns and pay due tax, interest, penalty and late fee per Rule 22(4) proviso, relief of restoration was warranted in parity with Dhirghat

CGST S.29
CGST S.30
CGST Rules R.22

Kerala High Court1 Jun 2026

For assessee

Malabar Trade Links v. Superintendent

Where respondent issued a single composite show cause notice and order spanning multiple assessment years for tax or ITC not involving fraud, such composite notice was unsustainable as per Division Bench ruling, and both composite SCN and OIO were to be quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year

CGST S.73
CGST S.75

Gauhati High Court1 Jun 2026

For assessee

Bhushan Chandra Deka v. Union of India

Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months, and appeal was dismissed, petitioner is entitled to restoration upon application and compliance by filing all pending returns and

CGST S.30
CGST S.29
CGST Rules R.22
CGST Rules R.23

Madras High Court1 Jun 2026

Tvl. Narumanam Spices v. Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise

Where assessee faced ex parte assessment for alleged excess ITC based on mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, had paid differential ITC pre-order and attributed non-response to a lapse by a part-time accountant, equitable grounds required that assessee be given opportunity to present submissions with supporting documents, thus, impugned assessment order was to be set aside for fresh consideration with effective hearing

CGST S.16
CGST S.73

1
…
26
27

Page 27 of 27