Case laws · TaxKatha

Gauhati High Court29 Jul 2026

For assessee

Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Where order imposing tax, interest and penalty for FY 2018-19 under Assam GST Act was passed on 30.04.2024 without any State notification extending limitation under Section 168A for said year, statutory period for passing order had expired on 31.12.2023, thus order was time-barred and unsustainable in law and was set aside. GST: Where tax, interest and penalty were imposed under an order that failed to follow Section 75(6) format and was passed without providing assessee opportunity of hearing as prescribed by Section 75(4), breach of statutory procedure vitiated adjudication and such impugned order could not be sustained in law and was set aside

Gauhati High Court29 Jul 2026

For assessee

Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Kerala High Court28 Jul 2026

For assessee

Choice Color Coats v. Deputy Director Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence

Where respondents issued a single composite show cause notice and summary covering multiple financial years, such composite notice was impermissible warranting quashing of consolidated notice and summary, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and exclusion of limitation period for reinitiation from issuance of composite notice till receipt of judgment copy

Gujarat High Court28 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Aarya Metals v. State of Gujarat

Where ITC recovery was ordered against petitioners based on allegations of non-genuine inward supplies without addressing their detailed replies and documents and without granting an opportunity for personal hearing, passing a cryptic two-line order without reasons violated natural justice requirements, rendering the order unsustainable and necessitating its quashing for decision after proper hearing. GST: Where proceedings for recovery of ITC with interest were initiated without intimating date, time or venue for personal hearing even after reminders, and a cryptic order lacking reasons was passed, failure to provide statutory personal hearing before adverse decision amounted to breach of natural justice, thus vitiating adjudication and rendering impugned order liable to be quashed

CGST S.75

Madras High Court28 Jul 2026

For assessee

Incompressible Fluid Control System v. Assistant Commissioner

Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A was available where proceedings had been initiated under section 73 even in respect of self assessed tax arising from belated filing of GSTR 3B, non obstante clause in section 75(12) permitting direct recovery under section 79 could not exclude such cases from amnesty scheme once liability was determined under section 73 GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A having been accepted and Form GST SPL 05 issued, authorities could not subsequently declare such approval void by invoking section 161 except in contingencies specifically contemplated under Rule 164(16) or 164(17) GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being governed by mandatory timelines under Rule 164, belated filing of application or payment beyond prescribed period could not be condoned on basis of substantial compliance, and rejection of waiver claim was justified GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being subject to mandatory filing timelines under Rule 164, belated or non filing of application on plea of lack of knowledge of section 73 order could not be condoned, and writ petitions were liable to be dismissed

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

Rajasthan High Court23 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Navin Tent House v. State of Rajasthan

Where SCN proposing tax demand expressly contemplated personal hearing after reply due date and assessee filed timely reply with written personal hearing request, but officer passed ex parte order without fixing such hearing or considering reply, denial of opportunity breached natural justice and vitiated assessment, mandating setting aside of order and directing fresh proceeding after affording personal hearing

Karnataka High Court23 Jul 2026

For assessee

Padmavati Engineerings v. State of Karnataka Department of Finance

Where assessee was unaware of any tax demand leading to attachment of bank account without prior hearing, such recovery action was prima facie unsustainable as opportunity of hearing is a mandatory procedural requirement; so communication effecting attachment was to be kept in abeyance and attachment could not operate until hearing requirement was complied with

Uttarakhand High Court23 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

J M D News & Advertisers v. State of Uttarakhand

Where assessee submitted manual reply to SCN within prescribed time and adjudicating authority passed order without considering reply, technical objection regarding non-electronic filing was not accepted and non-appearance on hearing date could not justify ignoring reply, order suffered from gross violation of natural justice and stood vitiated, warranting quashing of order and remand for fresh decision considering reply

Allahabad High Court23 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Ved Enterprises v. State of U.P

Where registered person received notice under section 74 but was not offered any personal hearing, with 'NA' entered for hearing details and adverse order was passed, statutory mandate under section 75(4) for oral hearing before adverse decision was violated, non-filing of written reply did not negate right to oral hearing, making adverse order invalid

Calcutta High Court21 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

B. Enterprise v. State of West Bengal

Where SCN proposing ITC reversal was issued for discrepancies flagged during relevant period but failed to specify hearing details and was uploaded under 'Additional notices and orders' tab instead of proper portal mode, ex parte order violated principles of natural justice, requiring order to be set aside and matter reconsidered after providing proper hearing opportunity

Patna High Court17 Jul 2026

For assessee

Munna Chaudhary v. Union of India

Where registration of works contractor was cancelled for non-filing of returns without affording personal hearing and SCN for revocation lacked officer identity and mandatory DIN, such cancellation and consequent rejection order were invalid, statutory mandate of hearing was not followed, appellate orders suffered from jurisdictional error, so impugned orders were set aside and registration directed to be restored GST: Where petitioner filed updated returns and paid late fee before revocation SCN, but SCN lacked officer name, designation and DIN and did not consider earlier communications regarding illness and son’s murder, such non- application of mind and procedural illegality rendered cancellation, revocation rejection and appellate orders unsustainable and registration was directed to be restored with costs, as later circular could not cure these defects retrospectively

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

Kerala High Court16 Jul 2026

For assessee

Prabhakaran Padmanabhan v. Additional Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise

Where petitioner received a consolidated show cause notice and consequential orders for multiple financial years for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, in light of Division Bench rulings prohibiting composite notices for multiple years, such consolidated notice and orders were quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and limitation period adjusted accordingly

Calcutta High Court16 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Raju Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation

Where penalty was imposed on sole proprietorship for alleged issuance of invoices without supply and availing ITC without receipt of goods, and request for cross-examination of persons whose statements formed basis of penalty was denied, such denial amounted to gross violation of principles of natural justice, warranting setting aside of impugned order and fresh adjudication with cross-examination opportunity

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

Allahabad High Court10 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Round Pay Voice Tech v. State of U.P

Where adjudication order demanding tax, interest and penalty exceeded quantum proposed in SCN and introduced grounds beyond notice, action was contrary to statutory mandate that final demand cannot exceed notice amount or rest on grounds beyond notice, thus, impugned order raising higher demand was unsustainable

CGST S.75

Kerala High Court10 Jul 2026

For assessee

Palakkandy Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Where assessees faced tax determination proceedings on the basis of unsigned notices and orders, quashment of those orders barred authorities from curing defects by re-uploading the same orders and required issuance of fresh notices or orders as per law, with earlier directions enabling such re-issuance or barring limitation set aside and liberty to issue new notices/orders expressly retained

Calcutta High Court9 Jul 2026

For assessee

Rajat Dalmia v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue

Where proceedings under West Bengal GST Act were initiated by issuing Form GST DRC-01 omitting date, time, and venue for personal hearing and marking those as 'not applicable', thus denying petitioner an opportunity of hearing, entire assessment and demands founded on such defective show cause notice were vitiated and required to be set aside, with liberty for fresh proceedings after granting proper hearing

Calcutta High Court8 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Sanat Kumar Hazra v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Howrah and Kadamtala Charge

Where an ex parte order under Section 74 was uploaded under a wrong portal tab and thus, escaped assessee’s notice,impugned order was to be set aside and opportunity to contest SCN was granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards disputed tax

Andhra Pradesh High Court8 Jul 2026

For assessee

Phoenix Medical Syatems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Where assessee’s reply to Section 74 SCN was not considered and mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) was not granted, same vitiated DRC-07 assessment; as hearing was required where adverse decision was contemplated, order and consequential proceedings were unsustainable and were to be quashed. GST: Violation of natural justice and failure to grant mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) rendered assessment under Section 74 legally unsustainable; consequently, endorsement rejecting statutory appeal as time-barred could not survive, and assessment with all consequential proceedings was to be set aside

Every ruling, in plain sight.