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

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

82 rulings found

Sort by

Demands & adjudicationRemove filter
CGST S.73Remove filter
Clear all

Patna High Court30 Jun 2026
For revenue
Ram Sundar Prasad Singh @ Ram Sundar Prasad v. Union of India
Where assessee registered in multiple states leased parking spaces and paid license fee under reverse charge, and proper officer at Chandigarh passed order raising demand, writ challenging such order lies only before forum with appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over Chandigarh authority, thus, Patna High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ and remedy was to be sought before appropriate forum

Service of notices & orders

30

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.73

Gujarat High Court23 Jun 2026

For assessee

Smt. Gulabben Gopaldas Jamvecha v. State of Gujarat

Where department issued show cause notice and tax order in deceased proprietor's name after cancellation of registration with zero dues, in view of fact that petitioner widow had no business connection, all such proceedings and consequential actions like bank account freezing were void and quashed, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against legal heir if permissible under law

CGST S.93
CGST S.73
CGST S.83

Kerala High Court19 Jun 2026

For assessee

Sri Sri Granites v. Assistant Commissioner

Where consolidated show cause notice covered multiple financial years in a single notice and precedents mandated separate notices for each assessment year, issuing a composite SCN was impermissible and such notice was to be quashed with liberty to issue fresh year-wise notices

CGST S.73
CGST S.75

Gauhati High Court17 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

MS Sarada Refrigeration and Air Condition v. State of Assam

Where proper officer issued only summary of SCN without serving substantive show cause notice before passing order in original under section 73(9), such determination was unsustainable and order was to be quashed requiring proper officer to issue show cause notice detailing cause of action for initiation of proceedings as mandated under section 73(1)

CGST S.73

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

CGST S.93
CGST S.73
CGST S.74
CGST S.74A

Kerala High Court12 Jun 2026

For assessee

NAV BSA Enterprises v. Enforcement Officer

Where revenue issued a single composite show cause notice covering multiple tax periods without alleging fraud, such composite notice was unsustainable in law as per binding Division Bench precedents, and was required to be quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant period, while excluding time from composite notice date to judgment delivery for limitation

CGST S.73

Karnataka High Court10 Jun 2026

For revenue

State of Karnataka v. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders A Sole Proprietorship

Contractual entitlement to reimbursement of incremental GST cannot alter statutory GST provisions and GST authorities cannot be directed to permit revised returns or waive interest, penalty, or limitation on that basis; such reimbursement dispute lies only between contractor and employer

CGST S.73
CGST S.9
CGST S.108

Karnataka High Court10 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Nuvteq Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-5)

Where assessee's export of services and refund eligibility were denied solely due to alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking without examining nature of transactions or actual furnishing of Letter of Undertaking as required under law, both adjudication and appellate orders were to be quashed and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration regarding jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on Letter of Undertaking

CGST S.73
CGST S.54
CGST Rules R.96A

Telangana High Court8 Jun 2026

For assessee

Divya Textile Industries v. Assistant Commissioner

Where proper officer issued tax demand order for April 2019 to March 2020 after the expiry of extended limitation on 31.08.2024, delay in order upload was a jurisdictional defect not cured by administrative workload or minor revenue loss, and as limitation affected authority to tax, both order- in-original and order-in-appeal were unsustainable and set aside

CGST S.73
CGST S.168A

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenueRemanded

Ace Tech Heavy Fab (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer

Where petitioner failed to respond to requests for information and show cause notices regarding possible non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful ITC, non-response amounted to suppression to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation and initiation of proceedings under Section 74; hence ex parte orders were warranted in absence of substantive reply, but matter remitted for de novo adjudication. GST: Where DRC-01A intimations and notices were issued for tax periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 after scrutiny and no replies were filed, ex parte orders confirming proposals were within limitation under Sections 73 and 74, and Appellate Authority could convert to Section 73 proceedings if Section 74 was wrongly invoked, provided proper reply to DRC-01 was available

CGST S.74
CGST S.73

Gauhati High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenue

Tata Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Where petitioners received consolidated SCNs as also consolidated orders covering multiple years under sections 73/74, such composite notices and orders were valid as statutes do not mandate FY-wise segregation and there was no statutory bar and limitation principles would apply period-wise; and jurisdiction was not defeated absent Article 14 or limitation breach

CGST S.73
CGST S.74

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Sampoornam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) / Commercial Tax Officer

Where notices and ex parte orders for ITC mismatch and delayed GSTR-9 were issued in name of deceased individual due to non-intimation of death by legal heir, orders were set aside and matter remitted for fresh decision on merits with pre-deposit, as ex parte adjudication was improper despite extended-period provision being validly invoked in present context. GST: Where demands were raised for 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 by issuing DRC-01A and DRC-01, and limitation periods stood extended due to statutory notifications and Supreme Court’s Covid-19 orders, adjudication under general demand provision remained maintainable even if extended- period proceedings were inapplicable, as law permitted passing of orders under general demand provision in such circumstances. GST: Where assessee died and no intimation of death was given, statutory liability for tax, interest or penalty determined against deceased for ITC mismatch and late fee continued upon legal heir, who was required to discharge such liabilities even if business was discontinued, as legal heir is responsible for dues of deceased under GST law

CGST S.74
CGST S.93
CGST S.75
CGST S.73
+1

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenue

Sameera Hotels (Chennai) (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (Inspection-I)

Where assessee availed and utilized excess ITC over GSTR-2A figures and failed to pay reverse charge tax on foreign agency commissions, such acts constituted wrongful availment and suppression with intent to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation under Section 74 GST: Orders passed in November 2024 under Section 73 for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were within limitation, as statutory extensions governed computation of time, and limitation issue stood concluded by binding precedent

CGST S.74
CGST S.73
CGST S.75

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenue

Fastenex (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer

Where assessees challenged demands raised invoking extended-period on ground that there was lack of foundational facts in show cause notices, in view of fact that prior communications like scrutiny, audit or inspection had already conveyed requisite reasons and facts, invocation of extended-period was valid; absence of reasons in show cause notice alone was not fatal if jurisdictional facts were discernible from earlier communications or on record, subject to prima facie satisfaction under section 74. GST: Where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is not established, proceedings initiated under Section 74 need not fail but may be converted into Section 73 proceedings; such conversion preserves valid tax demands while excluding consequences dependent on extended-period ingredients. GST: Where central authorities issued consolidated show cause notices spanning multiple years and parties disputed permissibility of such composite notices, consolidated SCNs covering multiple periods were deemed valid, as normal and extended-period demands were not tax-period specific and statute did not prohibit common SCNs for multiple periods GST: Where assessee, on being inspected for multiple years and issued DRC-01A and DRC-01 alleging fraud, non-cooperation, documentation lapses and failures to provide financials, challenged show cause notices as pre-determined, since GST scheme allows communication of reasons throughout proceedings and detailed SCN was intended to enable assessee for rebuttal, writ challenge was not maintainable and merits had to be adjudicated in their own course.…

CGST S.74
CGST S.61
CGST S.65
CGST S.66
+5

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenue

Canon India (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer/Group - VI

Where SCNs alleging tax or ITC fraud for periods 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 were issued in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 prior to expiry of statutory limitation and after issuance of DRC-01A intimation, challenge on limitation was untenable as statutory timelines were complied with, and SCNs therefore survived. GST: Where petitioner failed to reply to DRC-01A in respect of 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 leading to non-cooperation and suppression under Explanation-2, invocation of Section 74 machinery was justified and, with disputed facts involved, remedy lay in adjudication by replying to SCNs rather than writ, so writ petitions seeking quash were not maintainable

CGST S.74
CGST S.75
CGST S.73

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenue

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Where petitioner company was merged and after NCLT's approval, unutilized ITC and liabilities were transferred and department parallelly initiated audit-based and scrutiny-based proceedings for same period, audit and scrutiny notices could be issued separately as each arose from distinct processes; suppression of facts being disclosed as was required for invoking section 74, limitation period would be extended and, thus, SCNs could not be challenged filing writ petitions

CGST S.74
CGST S.44
CGST S.65
CGST S.73
+2

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

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 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

1
…
3
4
5

Page 4 of 5