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

7 rulings found

Sort by

Search & seizureRemove filter
Clear all

Delhi High Court18 Sept 2026
For revenue
Puneet Batra v. Union of India
Where department searched law firm premises under statutory authorization and seized client documents and CPU from advocate’s cabin, advocate-client privilege was held not to bar search as cabin formed part of authorized premises and privilege protected confidential client communications belonging to client rather than location, while prima facie material justified inquiry into advocate’s conduct, consequently writ petition was to be dismissed

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

CGST S.67

Gauhati High Court11 Sept 2026

For assessee

Ankit Choudhary v. Union of India

Where authorities seized cash, along with other items, during search under section 67 but cash did not fall within permissible articles for seizure, such action was illegal and, although cash was refunded before adjudication, petitioner was entitled to interest for period of illegal withholding and respondent authorities were required to compute and pay such interest. GST: Where search under section 67 resulted in seizure of mobile phones, pen drives and a bank card, and since SCN was already issued, continued retention of seized goods was unwarranted and Investigating Officer was required to arrange immediate release of said items to petitioner

CGST S.67
CGST S.56

Gauhati High Court3 Sept 2026

For revenue

HD Associates v. Union of India

Where search was conducted at business premises of partnership firm under Section 67 based on FORM GST INS-01 authorization, plea that search was vitiated for want of authorization failed as valid authorization existed, statute did not require prior disclosure of reasons to taxable person, and adjudicating authority was to verify validity of authorization and records during adjudication. GST: Where department raised demand alleging misdeclaration or suppression after search and investigation found incriminating documents, absence of scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 did not invalidate consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice since search under Section 67 and investigation provided foundation, but if any demand rests solely on return scrutiny, relevant statutory compliance must be ensured and can be examined during adjudication. GST: Where petitioner received consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice invoking Section 74(1) for certain years and Section 74A(1) for another, objection to consolidation was untenable as no bar exists against a multi-year notice, but authority must determine liability and applicability of each provision separately for each financial year with attention to limitation and statutory requirements. GST: Where SCN invoked penalty provisions under both sections 74 or 74A and 122 in respect of same act or omission, such reference in notice does not violate bar against double penalty under section 75(13) at proposal stage, but authorities must ensure no double penalty is actually imposed during adjudication and imposition in compliance with statutory prohibition.…

CGST S.67
CGST Rules R.139
CGST S.74
CGST S.61
+4

Gauhati High Court10 Aug 2026

For assessee

Surendra Sharma v. State of Assam

Power conferred under section 67(4) can only be exercised upon initiation of search proceedings and so long search proceedings are continuing, keeping premises of petitioner sealed for last four months was illegal and against mandate of section 67(4), as power under Section 67(4) ceases to exist once search proceedings culminated with seizure of goods, documents, books or things

CGST S.67

Madras High Court5 Aug 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Bhima Enterprises v. Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

Where search authorization issued in respect of petitioner partnership firm under Section 67(2) lacked DIN with only a generic assertion of technical difficulty and no contemporaneous record, and DIN was neither timely generated nor communicated to noticee, mandatory requirements of DIN display, contemporaneous recording of exception, regularization, and sharing with noticee were breached, rendering authorization non-compliant; authorities to initiate fresh proceeding

CGST S.67

Delhi High Court5 Aug 2026

For revenue

Goel Metal v. Union of India

Section 67 covered search, seizure and provisional release while Section 74A addressed determination of tax liability, both provisions operated in distinct fields and provisional release under Section 67(6) was not dependent on proceedings under Section 74A(9)

CGST S.67
CGST S.74A

Gujarat High Court25 Jun 2026

For revenue

Hirenkumar Valjibhai Sankhalava v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

Where unregistered coaching institute admitted cash suppression and liability during search and voluntarily paid tax dues post-admission, with no contemporaneous complaint or evidence of coercion, such payment cannot be termed coercive recovery and allegation raised after two years is an afterthought not warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. GST: Where after search petitioner deposited quantified dues voluntarily via DRC-03, issuance of DRC-04 was only an acknowledgment with no prescribed timeline, and payment with interest and penalty concluded proceedings, so later refund claim and coercion narratives were afterthoughts, making rejection of refund plea and delayed DRC-04 issuance legally justified. GST: Where unregistered coaching institute deposited tax, interest and penalty voluntarily during search after quantification based on seized evidence of student count and fees, refund claim was rejected since refund arises only if tax was not payable or paid in excess, and no illegality was found in rejection, making cited circular and case laws inapplicable

CGST S.67
CGST Rules R.142
CGST S.74
CGST S.54
+2