Case laws · TaxKatha

GSTAT New Delhi29 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Maata Rani Builders and Developers

Where builder failed to pass on additional ITC benefit by actual price reduction for Anamika Apartment flats despite providing some extra construction work free of cost, such act did not meet section 171 mandate and builder was held liable to pass on Rs 99,435 with GST and interest to affected homebuyers, as per DGAP's accepted computation and methodology GST: Where respondent failed to pass on benefit of GST reduction to two homebuyers during specified period, respondent was mandatorily liable to return differential amount along with interest at 18 percent per annum from date of collection till actual payment, as provisions under Rule 133(3)(b) and Section 171 are compulsory once profiteering is established GST: Where contravention of anti-profiteering measure continued from 1 July 2017 to 31 October 2020 and penalty provision under Section 171(3A) became effective from 1 January 2020, liability for penalty arose only for non-passing of benefit during post-insertion period, with statutory relief available if profiteered amount was deposited within thirty days from order date

GSTAT New Delhi29 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Maata Rani Builders and Developers

AAR Uttarakhand29 Jul 2026

For revenue

Chemizone (P.) Ltd., In re

Where applicant paid/will be paying GST on upfront lease premium for industrial plot intended for factory construction, since bar on ITC for goods or services used for construction of immovable property applies, applicant is not eligible for claim of ITC of GST paid/payable on upfront payment of lease amount

CGST S.17

AAR Karnataka29 Jul 2026

For revenue

S.K. Swamy and Company, In re

Where applicant, a registered partnership, supplied ballast and loaded it into Railway wagons using JCB loaders without undertaking any building, construction, erection or activities connected with immovable property, such work did not meet statutory requirements for works contract and thus could not be classified as one under GST law. GST: Where applicant executed contract for supply of ballast and separate loading service with distinct pricing, sequential execution, separate invoices, and transfer of title to Railways before loading, such supplies were not naturally bundled or composite, but independent and liable to separate GST as per relevant classification and rate for each supply. GST: Where applicant provided loading services of Railway-owned ballast into wagons using mechanical loaders without engaging in transport or wagon movement, activity was essentially cargo handling, classifiable under SAC 996719, and attracted GST at 18 percent as per relevant rate notification

GSTAT New Delhi28 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti-Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. MM Construction

Where homebuyer filed complaint alleging non-passing of additional ITC after GST rollout for flat in residential project and DGAP found respondent availed additional ITC which was not disputed, statutory obligation required such benefit to be passed on to eligible homebuyers by commensurate reduction in prices, thus, respondent was required to pass on additional ITC benefit post-GST implementation along with interest

CGST S.171

Gauhati High Court27 Jul 2026

For revenue

Nehkhohao Haokip v. Union of India

Where petitioners promoted as Executive Assistants and transferred on ICT post-2015 Recruitment Rules, which provided for separate cadres and no provision for absorption, with CBIC’s policy banning ICT except limited relaxations, repatriation orders treating ICTs as loan postings were valid and no infirmity arose in upholding impermissibility of ICT postings

Rajasthan High Court24 Jul 2026

For revenue

Chotu Devi v. Union of India

Where sole proprietorship discontinued on death of proprietor and adjudication orders for tax, interest and penalty were passed against deceased without notice or hearing to legal heir, section 93(1)(b) imposed recovery from estate through legal representative, subject to procedural requirements of proper notice, opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order under section 75. GST: Where adjudication order and tax demand were issued against a deceased proprietor without notice or hearing to legal heir and without a reasoned speaking order, assessment proceedings stood vitiated for non-compliance with statutory requirements and orders were quashed, allowing for fresh proceedings after giving hearing to legal heir

Supreme Court24 Jul 2026

For revenue

Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India

Where purchasing dealers challenged constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) on ground that ITC could not be denied for supplier's failure to deposit tax, since ITC is a statutory concession and section 41 permits re-availment of reversed ITC upon subsequent payment of tax by supplier, section 16(2)(c) was constitutionally valid and could not be read down

Delhi High Court23 Jul 2026

For revenue

SKG Metal Trading v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax

Where assessee challenged ex parte order confirming penalty for wrongful ITC availed on ground of non-receipt of SCN and asserted cessation of business with registration cancellation application, since disputed facts on service of notice and registration subsistence existed, writ remedy was not warranted and appellate remedy was to be pursued with writ-pendency period excluded for limitation purposes

Uttarakhand High Court17 Jul 2026

For revenue

Radhika Furniture @ Radha Devi v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax

Where assessees' appeals under Section 107 were dismissed as time-barred and sought condonation beyond statutory limits invoking Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, since GST is a special fiscal statute prescribing specific limitation with restricted condonation, Section 5 stood excluded by necessary implication and appeals beyond prescribed period could not be entertained

GSTAT New Delhi17 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Merit Magnum Construction (Formerly M/s Vimal Builders)

Mere filing of Occupancy Certificate application does not constitute project completion; completion occurs only on grant of Occupancy Certificate, and ITC availed till such grant must be considered for determining post-GST anti-profiteering liability. GST: Since sales made post-Occupancy Certificate are not taxable supplies and related ITC is inadmissible, anti-profiteering applies only up to date of Occupancy Certificate; accordingly, investigation should cover period upto Occupancy Certificate and revised computation based on CA-certified data was upheld. GST: In real estate projects, determination of anti-profiteering iamount by comparing pre-GST ITC-to-purchase ratio and post-GST ITC-to-purchase ratio up to Occupancy Certificate date and allocating per sq. ft. benefit to eligible buyers, reasonably quantifies additional ITC required to be passed on. GST: Where homebuyers are identifiable from project records, Rule 133(3)(b) requires refund of profiteered amount with 18% interest to each recipient; residuary deposit under Rule 133(3)(c) cannot be invoked merely because no complaint was made or buyers are temporarily unavailable. GST: Penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act is prospective from 01.01.2020 and, in the absence of express retrospective operation, cannot be imposed for anti- profiteering pertaining to periods prior thereto

Gauhati High Court17 Jul 2026

For revenue

North East Petrochemicals v. Union of India

Where Proper Officer issued a consolidated show cause notice and passed a single order covering multiple financial years for confirming tax, interest and penalty, issuance of such consolidated notice and order was within jurisdiction and authority, and challenge to competence on this ground was not sustainable with merits of the order left open for statutory appeal

Patna High Court17 Jul 2026

For revenue

Umagaurav (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar

Challenge to ex parte GST demand failed where SCN and reminders were issued through portal and registered e-mail, containing specific ITC mismatch figures; petitioner neither categorically denied e-mail receipt nor disclosed correct GSTR-2A ITC, and bare allegations of non-service and denial of hearing lacked credibility. GST: Writ challenging ex parte DRC-07 demand was not maintainable where petitioner failed to avail statutory appeal, voluntarily undertook to pay dues and issued post-dated cheques to secure de-attachment, later dishonoured; having benefited from de-attachment without protest or duress, petitioner was estopped and lacked bona fides to invoke Article 226

Gujarat High Court17 Jul 2026

For revenue

Vibrant Products v. Union of India

Where assessee sought abatement of cess for days preceding installation of additional packing machines, Rule 12(4) was held to operate with reference to total production capacity during a month and not date of installation, thus, challenge to rule was liable to be dismissed with liberty to pursue statutory appeal against order rejecting abatement application

Patna High Court15 Jul 2026

For revenue

Madhu Sudan Periwal v. State of Bihar

Where petitioner, a medicine trader, failed to file returns for 2020-2021 and was assessed for tax and late fee after show cause notice, demand of late fee through assessment proceedings under section 73 read with section 47, being a statutory mandate, was valid and enforceable and writ challenging such competence was to be dismissed as devoid of merit

Delhi High Court15 Jul 2026

For revenue

Sodexo India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Where assessee, after participating in audit and adjudication and filing detailed replies with documents, challenged an order-in-original via writ on grounds of non- consideration of reply and failure to seek additional documents, since adequate opportunity was provided and alternative appellate remedy under section 107 existed, no exceptional circumstance justified writ interference and complaint pertained to merits not natural justice

Kerala High Court15 Jul 2026

For revenue

Nayan Jitendra Shah v. Superintendent

Rejection of GST registration application for failure to establish lawful possession of premises was upheld where lease documents did not establish tenancy in favour of applicant partnership firm and application was not accompanied by authorization from other lessees; petitioner was permitted to submit fresh application with necessary documents

CGST S.25

AAAR West Bengal15 Jul 2026

For revenue

Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re

Where appellant completed construction contracts and received final payments prior to GST regime, but later sought advance ruling regarding taxability of compensation received post-arbitration, since advance ruling provisions applies only to ongoing or proposed supplies, and not to completed transactions, application was not maintainable and ruling could not be sustained GST: Where WBAAR admitted and ruled on an application regarding classification and taxability, on appeal, AAAR could examine maintainability even though admission occurred under Section 98(2), as appellate jurisdiction under Section 101(1) allows consideration of legal questions including maintainability, despite no departmental appeal or specific challenge from appellant. GST: Where appellant completed works pre-GST, received arbitral award in 2023 with payments in 2024, invocation of Section 142(2)(a) for treating awarded sums as upward price revision was incorrect since arbitral award alone does not constitute upward revision, and whether components are consideration for supplies, revision, damages or other heads requires case-specific fact scrutiny outside advance ruling scope. GST: Where amounts awarded for services that were potentially taxable under erstwhile law but not actually taxed are considered in transitional provisions; mere non-payment of service tax under old regime does not by itself mandate levy of GST, as section 142(11)(a) intends to prevent double taxation based on leviability under earlier law, not actual payment

Calcutta High Court13 Jul 2026

For revenue

M.M. Motors v. Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue

Limitation period applies to passing of adjudication order, not to its service; an adjudication order digitally signed within limitation period remains valid even if uploaded and served beyond limitation period and said order would become enforceable only upon such service

Supreme Court13 Jul 2026

For revenue

Fanmade11 Fantasy Sports (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Where writ petition challenging SCN was rendered unnecessary in view of Supreme Court's decision in Gameskraft Technologies, assessee was relegated to appear before Assessing Officer and avail statutory appeal against any adverse assessment order GST : Where final assessment order was passed despite interim protection against coercive action, since statutory remedy of appeal had become available, assessee was relegated to appellate authority with liberty to raise all contentions including revaluation and pre-deposit

Delhi High Court13 Jul 2026

For revenue

Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, CGST Delhi West

Where assessee applied for refund of unutilized ITC while SCN proposed partial rejection and OIO partially sanctioned refund and rejected balance while OIA set aside OIO to extent of wrongful rejection without mandating unconditional release or foreclosing further examination; since a subsequent order rejected refund, proper course was statutory appeal to test reasons and scope and effect of OIA GST: Where petitioner challenged rejection of refund of unutilized ITC, statutory appeal remedy being available, writ interference was not warranted; liberty was granted to pursue statutory appeal

Every ruling, in plain sight.