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

670 rulings

Sort by

Madras High Court5 Jun 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Tvl. Punitha Antony Store v. State Tax Officer
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
- CGST S.74

Appeals to Appellate Tribunal

22

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

Madras High Court5 Jun 2026

For revenue

V.V. Iron Steel Company (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise

Where manufacturer of TMT steel bars had credits blocked under Rule 86A due to evidence that four supplier premises were vacant with no infrastructure, no vehicle movements were recorded for alleged deliveries, and documentation anomalies indicated fake transactions, power to block ITC was validly exercised based on adequate material, and writ seeking unblocking was not justified

CGST Rules R.86A
CGST Rules R.86

Orissa High Court5 Jun 2026

Mahesh Value Products (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST

Where appellate authority rejected appeal as time barred by incorrectly computing limitation period under section 107 despite appeal being filed within condonable period, such rejection was unsustainable and matter was liable to be remanded for consideration of delay condonation request

CGST S.107

Delhi High Court5 Jun 2026

For assessee

Directorate General of GST Intelligence v. Girish Sachdeva

Where company issued high value E-way bills without filing GST returns, was non-existent at registered address, failed to respond to summons but only sent replies, and investigation suggested ineligible ITC and circular trading, seven days prior notice before arrest was justified as natural justice and not a blanket restraint, upholding department's right to investigate and proceed in law

CGST S.69
CGST S.132
CrPC S.438
CrPC S.482

Madras High Court5 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Akal Trade Links v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Where petitioner purchased goods under invoices containing vehicle numbers from a registered supplier who filed returns and paid tax, denial of input tax credit solely due to absence of lorry receipts and weighment slips without enquiry into genuineness of supply was unsustainable, thus order confirming denial on that basis was set aside and required reconsideration

CGST S.16
CGST S.155
CGST Rules R.36

Gauhati High Court5 Jun 2026

For assessee

Metal Syndicate v. Union of India

Where assessee bona fide purchased goods from registered suppliers, paid GST via banking channels, filed required GST returns, and availed ITC, denial of ITC solely due to supplier’s non-payment of tax was unjustified and revenue’s remedy lay against defaulting supplier, with liberty to act only if there was material indicating collusion or lack of bona fides by assessee

CGST S.16
CGST Rules R.37A

AAR West Bengal5 Jun 2026

For revenue

Eastern Coalfields Ltd., In re

Section 16(5), inserted by Finance Act (No. 2), 2024, only extends time-limit for availing ITC and does not create fresh right to reclaim credit reversed for supplier- reporting mismatch; hence, ITC on 2020 invoices, already reversed under AAR order, could not be re-availed

CGST S.16
CGST S.39
CGST Rules R.36

GSTAT New Delhi4 Jun 2026

For revenue

Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax

Where assessee chemical manufacturer engaged Dow Europe GmbH under procurement agreement for vendor identification and negotiation support, and Dow Europe acted independently without authority to bind assessee, services did not qualify as intermediary but as import of services, so place of supply remained in India, making IGST payable under reverse charge with refund claim rightly rejected. GST: Where assessee paid IGST under reverse charge on import of services, reversed related ITC and sought refund, in absence of export and with place of supply being in India, statutory conditions for refund were not met, and thus assessee had no entitlement to refund for the relevant period, warranting dismissal of appeals challenging rejection of refund claims

IGST S.13
IGST S.2
CGST S.54
CGST Rules R.89

Gauhati High Court4 Jun 2026

For assessee

Narayan Enterprise v. Union of India

Where purchaser trading in scrap batteries bought goods from registered suppliers, paid GST through banking channels, filed GST returns, and availed input tax credit, denial of ITC solely on ground of supplier's default in depositing tax was unjustified in absence of collusion or lack of bona fides, and remedy lay against defaulting supplier, thus impugned orders were set aside

CGST S.16
CGST S.50
CGST S.74
CGST S.122
+1

Gauhati High Court3 Jun 2026

For assessee

Gurucharan Kangsa Banik v. Union of India

Where scrap battery trader purchased goods from registered suppliers, paid price plus GST via bank and claimed ITC with proper invoices and returns, ITC could not be denied solely due to supplier's non-payment of GST in absence of wrongdoing or collusion by purchaser, remedy for non-payment by supplier lay against supplier, not purchasing dealer

CGST S.16
CGST S.50
CGST S.74
CGST S.122

Madras High Court3 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Kay Arr Engineering Services v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

Where DGGI issued SCN and Assistant Commissioner adjudicated and passed OIO confirming proposals, since power to pass orders on DGGI notices was vested only in Additional or Joint Commissioner by Notification 02/2022-CT, OIO passed by Assistant Commissioner suffered procedural irregularity and same was to be was quashed; matter to be decided by competent authority as per prevailing notifications

IGST S.3
CGST S.5

Madras High Court3 Jun 2026

For revenue

MNS Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Where registered persons challenged orders assessing liability for fraudulent ITC availed based on a key witness's statement but were denied cross-examination, right to cross-examination was not absolute since allegations pertained to bogus ITC and could be rebutted by documentary evidence, thus, mere denial of cross- examination did not vitiate adjudication, making statutory appeal appropriate remedy

CGST S.74
CGST S.70
CGST S.75

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

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

Supreme Court2 Jun 2026

For revenue

Chetan Cabletronices (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

SLP dismissed against impugned order of High Court that where assessees filed writ petitions despite statutory remedy of appeal being available before Appellate Authority under section 107, such writ petitions were not maintainable and stood disposed with liberty granted to assessees to pursue appeals and raise all legal or factual grounds before Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits

CGST S.107

1
…
32
33
34

Page 33 of 34