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 & orders

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

90 rulings found

Sort by

CGST S.75Remove filter
Clear all

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

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.74
CGST S.73
CGST S.75

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenue

Tvl. Noyyal Common Effluent Treatment Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, liability to pay interest for belated tax payment arose under determination and recovery framework, and obligation to pay interest subsisted irrespective of subsequent payment or willingness to pay in instalments, rendering recovery of such interest under determination and recovery provisions fully justified. GST: Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, interest on delayed payment remained payable under determination provisions and reference to extended period in DRC-01 and DRC-07 would not invalidate proceedings; matter required reconsideration of petitioner’s reply in light of business nature for a fresh order

CGST S.50
CGST S.75
CGST S.79
CGST S.74
+1

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

Southern Steels v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Where assessee operated two registrations and department inspection revealed circular transactions and fictitious ITC on non-supplies, such findings prima facie justified invoking extended limitation period under GST for both registrations and challenge to such invocation was untenable as all procedural requirements for Erode registration were duly followed as threshold for invoking extended period under GST regime is lower than previous indirect tax laws GST: Where post-remand DRC-07 orders for Gobichettipalayam were passed without prior DRC-01 show cause notice, such orders were to be set aside for fresh adjudication with opportunity and natural justice, while Erode proceedings that followed proper sequence with DRC-01A and DRC-01 reply suffered no procedural infirmity and were not to be interfered

CGST S.74
CGST S.75
CGST Rules R.142

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

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

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 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 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

1
…
4
5

Page 5 of 5