GST INDIA Biz

S.No	Name	Date of Order	Subject	Actions
1	TATA UNISTORE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, NAVI MUMBAI COMMISSIONERATE	31-07-2026	Eligibility of transitional ITC under Section 140 of the CGST Act relating to CENVAT credit, Krishi Kalyan Cess and VAT credit. Whether denial of transitional credit and invocation of Section 74 are sustainable in the absence of concealment or suppression	View Download
BACKGROUNDThe taxpayer transitioned credit from the pre-GST regime into GST under Section 140. The credit had been reflected in the pre-GST returns and had not been disputed under the erstwhile regime. The Department subsequently issued proceedings challenging the eligibility of the transitioned credit.The lower authorities confirmed recovery of the disputed transitional credit along with interest and penalty. The taxpayer challenged the denial, contending that credit validly existing under the erstwhile law could not be denied merely because it had transitioned into GST.COURT OBSERVATIONThe Tribunal examined the legal effect of transition from the pre-GST regime and held that the transitional credit could not be denied merely by raising objections that had not been raised under the erstwhile regime. In respect of Krishi Kalyan Cess, the Tribunal relied upon the existing legal position and held that its transition was in order.The Tribunal also held that the VAT credit transitioned under Section 140(6) could not be denied in the absence of a specific contrary finding or evidence. Other objections such as invoice description/address issues were also found insufficient where such objections had not been raised at the relevant stage.The Tribunal further found invocation of Section 74 and the 100% penalty wholly unjustified, since the proceedings arose from disclosures made through TRAN-1 and subsequent submissions rather than concealment.FINAL VERDICTThe Tribunal held that the transitional ITC was eligible, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.CASE REFERRED BY COURTGodrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. — Bombay High Court .Usha Martin Limited — High Court — order dated 10.11.2022. Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CEX — Calcutta High Court.Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand High Court.
TATA UNISTORE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, NAVI MUMBAI COMMISSIONERATE 31-07-2026 Eligibility of transitional ITC under Section 140 of the CGST Act relating to CENVAT credit, Krishi Kalyan Cess and VAT credit. Whether denial of transitional credit and invocation of Section 74 are sustainable in the absence of concealment or suppression BACKGROUNDThe taxpayer transitioned credit from the pre-GST regime into GST under Section 140. The credit had been reflected in the pre-GST returns and had not been disputed under the erstwhile regime. The Department subsequently issued proceedings challenging the eligibility of the transitioned credit.The lower authorities confirmed recovery of the disputed transitional credit along with interest and penalty. The taxpayer challenged the denial, contending that credit validly existing under the erstwhile law could not be denied merely because it had transitioned into GST.COURT OBSERVATIONThe Tribunal examined the legal effect of transition from the pre-GST regime and held that the transitional credit could not be denied merely by raising objections that had not been raised under the erstwhile regime. In respect of Krishi Kalyan Cess, the Tribunal relied upon the existing legal position and held that its transition was in order.The Tribunal also held that the VAT credit transitioned under Section 140(6) could not be denied in the absence of a specific contrary finding or evidence. Other objections such as invoice description/address issues were also found insufficient where such objections had not been raised at the relevant stage.The Tribunal further found invocation of Section 74 and the 100% penalty wholly unjustified, since the proceedings arose from disclosures made through TRAN-1 and subsequent submissions rather than concealment.FINAL VERDICTThe Tribunal held that the transitional ITC was eligible, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.CASE REFERRED BY COURTGodrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. — Bombay High Court .Usha Martin Limited — High Court — order dated 10.11.2022. Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CEX — Calcutta High Court.Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand High Court. View Download
2	COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE v. GODREJ TYSON FOODS LIMITED	22-07-2026	Whether printing the manufacturer's name and address on packaging constitutes use of a “brand name” for exemption under Notification No. 02/2017-CT(Rate). Whether institutional supplies qualify as “pre-packaged and labelled” goods under Notificati	View Download
BACKGROUNDThe taxpayer supplied frozen poultry products to institutional consumers. During one period, the brand logos were removed from the packaging, while the corporate name and address continued to be printed to comply with statutory requirements under food-safety and legal-metrology laws. The taxpayer claimed exemption under Notification No. 02/2017-CT(Rate).The adjudicating authority denied the exemption and confirmed tax, interest and penalty under Section 74(1). The First Appellate Authority subsequently set aside the demand, leading the Revenue to file the appeals before the Tribunal.COURT OBSERVATIONThe Tribunal held that printing the manufacturer's name and address pursuant to a statutory obligation for traceability and safety does not amount to affixing a brand name intended to establish a commercial connection. The goods did not bear the specific brand logos during the relevant period.For the period after 18.07.2022, the Tribunal held that packages intended for institutional consumers do not qualify as “pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale” under Rule 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. It also held that merely mentioning a brand name on an invoice does not make the physical goods branded.FINAL VERDICTThe Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's order granting the exemption and held that the demand of tax, interest and penalty could not be sustained. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.CASE REFERRED BY COURTRDB Textiles v. CCE — Supreme CourtTarai Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut — Supreme CourtNarasus Sarathy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. AC, GST & CE, Salem — Madras High CourtCCE v. Grasim Industries Ltd. — Supreme CourtCCE v. Australian Foods India (P) Ltd. — Supreme CourtSarvasidhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. — Tripura High Court
COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE v. GODREJ TYSON FOODS LIMITED 22-07-2026 Whether printing the manufacturer's name and address on packaging constitutes use of a “brand name” for exemption under Notification No. 02/2017-CT(Rate). Whether institutional supplies qualify as “pre-packaged and labelled” goods under Notificati BACKGROUNDThe taxpayer supplied frozen poultry products to institutional consumers. During one period, the brand logos were removed from the packaging, while the corporate name and address continued to be printed to comply with statutory requirements under food-safety and legal-metrology laws. The taxpayer claimed exemption under Notification No. 02/2017-CT(Rate).The adjudicating authority denied the exemption and confirmed tax, interest and penalty under Section 74(1). The First Appellate Authority subsequently set aside the demand, leading the Revenue to file the appeals before the Tribunal.COURT OBSERVATIONThe Tribunal held that printing the manufacturer's name and address pursuant to a statutory obligation for traceability and safety does not amount to affixing a brand name intended to establish a commercial connection. The goods did not bear the specific brand logos during the relevant period.For the period after 18.07.2022, the Tribunal held that packages intended for institutional consumers do not qualify as “pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale” under Rule 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. It also held that merely mentioning a brand name on an invoice does not make the physical goods branded.FINAL VERDICTThe Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's order granting the exemption and held that the demand of tax, interest and penalty could not be sustained. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.CASE REFERRED BY COURTRDB Textiles v. CCE — Supreme CourtTarai Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut — Supreme CourtNarasus Sarathy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. AC, GST & CE, Salem — Madras High CourtCCE v. Grasim Industries Ltd. — Supreme CourtCCE v. Australian Foods India (P) Ltd. — Supreme CourtSarvasidhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. — Tripura High Court View Download

Total: 2 case laws

Eligibility of transitional ITC under Section 140 of the CGST Act relating to CENVAT credit, Krishi Kalyan Cess and VAT credit. Whether denial of transitional credit and invocation of Section 74 are sustainable in the absence of concealment or suppression

Whether printing the manufacturer's name and address on packaging constitutes use of a “brand name” for exemption under Notification No. 02/2017-CT(Rate). Whether institutional supplies qualify as “pre-packaged and labelled” goods under Notificati