GST INDIA Biz

S.No	Name	Date of Order	Subject	Actions
1	Md Qamaruddin Khan v. M/s YRK Constructions, Hyderabad	17-09-2026	Whether the appellate authority could revoke cancellation of registration on verification of returns and tax alone, without ensuring payment of interest, late fee and penalty under the proviso to Rule 23(1).	View Download
BackgroundThe respondent’s registration was cancelled from 12.11.2020 for not filing GSTR-3B for six months. Finding that all returns had been filed after the show cause notice, the First Appellate Authority revoked the cancellation and directed the proper officer to verify the filing of returns and payment of tax. The department appealed, contending that interest, late fee and penalty also had to be paid under Rule 23(1). The respondent did not appear despite three opportunities.Final VerdictThe Tribunal held that the liability under returns extends to interest, late fee and penalty, and that by not applying the proviso to Rule 23(1), the First Appellate Authority committed a jurisdictional and substantive error. It also observed that admitted dues are recoverable through Section 79, which the department ought to invoke before seeking the Tribunal’s aid for collection. Reading the appellate order as intending recovery of the Rule 23 amounts, it held that the department was free to collect interest under Section 50 and late fee under Section 47, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 23, modifying the order to that extent. Since the revocation of cancellation was left intact and only ancillary dues and penalty were added, the outcome is neutral (partly in favour of each side).
Md Qamaruddin Khan v. M/s YRK Constructions, Hyderabad 17-09-2026 Whether the appellate authority could revoke cancellation of registration on verification of returns and tax alone, without ensuring payment of interest, late fee and penalty under the proviso to Rule 23(1). BackgroundThe respondent’s registration was cancelled from 12.11.2020 for not filing GSTR-3B for six months. Finding that all returns had been filed after the show cause notice, the First Appellate Authority revoked the cancellation and directed the proper officer to verify the filing of returns and payment of tax. The department appealed, contending that interest, late fee and penalty also had to be paid under Rule 23(1). The respondent did not appear despite three opportunities.Final VerdictThe Tribunal held that the liability under returns extends to interest, late fee and penalty, and that by not applying the proviso to Rule 23(1), the First Appellate Authority committed a jurisdictional and substantive error. It also observed that admitted dues are recoverable through Section 79, which the department ought to invoke before seeking the Tribunal’s aid for collection. Reading the appellate order as intending recovery of the Rule 23 amounts, it held that the department was free to collect interest under Section 50 and late fee under Section 47, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 23, modifying the order to that extent. Since the revocation of cancellation was left intact and only ancillary dues and penalty were added, the outcome is neutral (partly in favour of each side). View Download
2	Sri Parameshwara Bricks v. State Tax Officer, Peddapalli Circle, Karimnagar Division & Ors.	20-08-2026	Lapse of composition option on crossing the Rs. 1.5 crore turnover threshold, and whether differential tax must be computed on cum-tax value under Rule 35.	View Download
BackgroundThe appellant, a red clay brick manufacturer under composition (Section 10(1), TGST/CGST), was found in audit to have e-way bill turnover of Rs. 1,95,53,800 for FY 2020-21 against Rs. 1,44,86,100 declared in CMP-08. Demands under Section 73 at the regular 5% rate, with interest and 10% penalty, were confirmed for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22 and upheld by the First Appellate Authority. The issues were whether the threshold was crossed and composition benefit lost, and whether the appellate order was justified.Final VerdictThe Tribunal held that, the crossing of the threshold being admitted, under Section 10(3) the composition option lapses automatically, by force of statute, from the day aggregate turnover exceeds Rs. 1.5 crore. From that day Rule 6(2) makes tax payable under Section 9(1), subject to credit for composition tax already paid. It saw no ground to disturb the figures, which had already excluded e-way bill typographical errors. On its own motion, however, it held that since a composition dealer cannot collect tax from recipients (Section 10(4)), the invoice value must be treated as cum-tax and the differential tax worked out under the Rule 35 formula, even though the benefit was never claimed, because, following Unichem Laboratories (SC), the department must collect neither more nor less than the tax legally due. The proper officer was directed to recompute tax only on post-lapse supplies within two weeks, and to recompute interest and penalty accordingly. The question of ITC after cessation was left open, and the order was modified to that limited extent.
Sri Parameshwara Bricks v. State Tax Officer, Peddapalli Circle, Karimnagar Division & Ors. 20-08-2026 Lapse of composition option on crossing the Rs. 1.5 crore turnover threshold, and whether differential tax must be computed on cum-tax value under Rule 35. BackgroundThe appellant, a red clay brick manufacturer under composition (Section 10(1), TGST/CGST), was found in audit to have e-way bill turnover of Rs. 1,95,53,800 for FY 2020-21 against Rs. 1,44,86,100 declared in CMP-08. Demands under Section 73 at the regular 5% rate, with interest and 10% penalty, were confirmed for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22 and upheld by the First Appellate Authority. The issues were whether the threshold was crossed and composition benefit lost, and whether the appellate order was justified.Final VerdictThe Tribunal held that, the crossing of the threshold being admitted, under Section 10(3) the composition option lapses automatically, by force of statute, from the day aggregate turnover exceeds Rs. 1.5 crore. From that day Rule 6(2) makes tax payable under Section 9(1), subject to credit for composition tax already paid. It saw no ground to disturb the figures, which had already excluded e-way bill typographical errors. On its own motion, however, it held that since a composition dealer cannot collect tax from recipients (Section 10(4)), the invoice value must be treated as cum-tax and the differential tax worked out under the Rule 35 formula, even though the benefit was never claimed, because, following Unichem Laboratories (SC), the department must collect neither more nor less than the tax legally due. The proper officer was directed to recompute tax only on post-lapse supplies within two weeks, and to recompute interest and penalty accordingly. The question of ITC after cessation was left open, and the order was modified to that limited extent. View Download

Total: 2 case laws

Whether the appellate authority could revoke cancellation of registration on verification of returns and tax alone, without ensuring payment of interest, late fee and penalty under the proviso to Rule 23(1).

Lapse of composition option on crossing the Rs. 1.5 crore turnover threshold, and whether differential tax must be computed on cum-tax value under Rule 35.