BACKGROUND The assessee had made a statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 for maintaining an appeal before the appellate authority, in which it thereafter succeeded. The assessee then sought refund of the pre-deposit amount. The High Court of Jharkhand, while granting relief, interpreted and applied Section 54 of the Jharkhand GST Act to order the refund. The State of Jharkhand challenged this before the Supreme Court, contending that the refund of statutory pre-deposit in such a case is governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and that Section 54 had no application in this context. CRUCIAL COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel that the subject refund was relatable to Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and to that extent, the exercise undertaken by the High Court with regard to Section 54 thereof was unnecessary." FINAL VERDICT The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interpretation of Section 54 as unnecessary in this context, clarified that refund of statutory pre-deposit on success in appeal is governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and directed refund of the amount with interest within four weeks. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. ↔️
State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited 09-01-2026
BACKGROUND The assessee had made a statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 for maintaining an appeal before the appellate authority, in which it thereafter succeeded. The assessee then sought refund of the pre-deposit amount. The High Court of Jharkhand, while granting relief, interpreted and applied Section 54 of the Jharkhand GST Act to order the refund. The State of Jharkhand challenged this before the Supreme Court, contending that the refund of statutory pre-deposit in such a case is governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and that Section 54 had no application in this context. CRUCIAL COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel that the subject refund was relatable to Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and to that extent, the exercise undertaken by the High Court with regard to Section 54 thereof was unnecessary." FINAL VERDICT The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interpretation of Section 54 as unnecessary in this context, clarified that refund of statutory pre-deposit on success in appeal is governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and directed refund of the amount with interest within four weeks. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. ↔️
Background. By NCLT order dated 10.08.2023, three entities including Alstom Rail Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. (ARTIPL) were dissolved and amalgamated into the petitioner; the certified copy was filed with the Registrar of Companies on 22.09.2023, which was the effective date under the scheme, and intimation was given to the department on 10.10.2023. On 20.10.2023 ARTIPL filed FORM GST ITC-02 transferring Rs. 192,87,53,211 out of total unutilised credit of Rs. 242,02,00,000, retaining Rs. 49,14,00,000 in its own electronic credit ledger, and then filed month-wise refund claims under Section 54(3) for that balance on account of April 2023 exports. A refund of Rs. 2,56,75,437 was sanctioned and encashed, was reviewed under Section 107(2), and was set aside in appeal on 08.01.2025. ARTIPL’s registration was cancelled only on 29.11.2024.Observations of the Court. The Court noted that although ARTIPL stood dissolved and amalgamated from the dates set out above, it continued to be treated as a registered person under GST and was so recognised by the authorities until 29.11.2024, which reflected a flawed approach on the part of the jurisdictional officers.On amalgamation and formation of the petitioner, the only and exclusive manner of transferring the unutilised credit from the transferor’s electronic ledger was through FORM GST ITC-02, which it resorted to only in substantial part, that is about eighty per cent. The petitioner was entitled to claim the entire unutilised credit and to encash it had it been transferred by following the statute, since the petitioner itself had never exported the goods. No patent illegality was found in the appellate order. Applying the doctrine of pari delicto, the Court held that where the action of both the entities and the jurisdictional officer was pernicious to the statutory provisions, the law aids neither party, and the transferor could not seek the benefit of a refund from the fault of the officer when it was equally at fault.Final verdict. The writ petitions failed legal scrutiny and were dismissed, rule discharged. The Court additionally directed the Revenue to issue appropriate instructions for scrupulously following the mandate of the statutory provisions while dealing with the registrations of both entities in cases of amalgamation, and for taking prompt steps within the prescribed time frame as soon as the jurisdictional officer learns of an amalgamation.
Alstom Transport India Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeals) 07-01-2026
Background. By NCLT order dated 10.08.2023, three entities including Alstom Rail Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. (ARTIPL) were dissolved and amalgamated into the petitioner; the certified copy was filed with the Registrar of Companies on 22.09.2023, which was the effective date under the scheme, and intimation was given to the department on 10.10.2023. On 20.10.2023 ARTIPL filed FORM GST ITC-02 transferring Rs. 192,87,53,211 out of total unutilised credit of Rs. 242,02,00,000, retaining Rs. 49,14,00,000 in its own electronic credit ledger, and then filed month-wise refund claims under Section 54(3) for that balance on account of April 2023 exports. A refund of Rs. 2,56,75,437 was sanctioned and encashed, was reviewed under Section 107(2), and was set aside in appeal on 08.01.2025. ARTIPL’s registration was cancelled only on 29.11.2024.Observations of the Court. The Court noted that although ARTIPL stood dissolved and amalgamated from the dates set out above, it continued to be treated as a registered person under GST and was so recognised by the authorities until 29.11.2024, which reflected a flawed approach on the part of the jurisdictional officers.On amalgamation and formation of the petitioner, the only and exclusive manner of transferring the unutilised credit from the transferor’s electronic ledger was through FORM GST ITC-02, which it resorted to only in substantial part, that is about eighty per cent. The petitioner was entitled to claim the entire unutilised credit and to encash it had it been transferred by following the statute, since the petitioner itself had never exported the goods. No patent illegality was found in the appellate order. Applying the doctrine of pari delicto, the Court held that where the action of both the entities and the jurisdictional officer was pernicious to the statutory provisions, the law aids neither party, and the transferor could not seek the benefit of a refund from the fault of the officer when it was equally at fault.Final verdict. The writ petitions failed legal scrutiny and were dismissed, rule discharged. The Court additionally directed the Revenue to issue appropriate instructions for scrupulously following the mandate of the statutory provisions while dealing with the registrations of both entities in cases of amalgamation, and for taking prompt steps within the prescribed time frame as soon as the jurisdictional officer learns of an amalgamation.
Facts :The petitioner, a trader in rubber products, purchased goods from a supplier and paid GST amounting to Rs.1,11,60,830/-. The supplier filed GSTR-1 but failed to deposit tax with the Government and filed nil GSTR-3B returns. The department denied ITC to the petitioner, blocked credit, and issued a demand under Section 73. The petitioner challenged the demand order dated 17.05.2022 and the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c). Court Decision:The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) but read down the provision. It held that ITC cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer where transactions are genuine and tax has been paid to the supplier. The Court set aside the demand order and directed grant of ITC to the petitioner, holding that denial is permissible only in cases of fraud, collusion, or non-genuine transactions. Cases Referred by Court:• B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. • CST v. Radhakrishan • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade and Tax • National Plasto Moulding v. State of Assam • McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. Union of India • Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT • Mahaveer Kumar Jain v. CIT • Jain Bros. v. Union of India • Chief Commissioner of CGST v. Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd.
Sahil Enterprises v. Union of India & Ors. 06-01-2026
Facts :The petitioner, a trader in rubber products, purchased goods from a supplier and paid GST amounting to Rs.1,11,60,830/-. The supplier filed GSTR-1 but failed to deposit tax with the Government and filed nil GSTR-3B returns. The department denied ITC to the petitioner, blocked credit, and issued a demand under Section 73. The petitioner challenged the demand order dated 17.05.2022 and the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c). Court Decision:The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) but read down the provision. It held that ITC cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer where transactions are genuine and tax has been paid to the supplier. The Court set aside the demand order and directed grant of ITC to the petitioner, holding that denial is permissible only in cases of fraud, collusion, or non-genuine transactions. Cases Referred by Court:• B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. • CST v. Radhakrishan • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade and Tax • National Plasto Moulding v. State of Assam • McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. Union of India • Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT • Mahaveer Kumar Jain v. CIT • Jain Bros. v. Union of India • Chief Commissioner of CGST v. Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd.
Facts:The petitioner purchased rubber products from a supplier and paid GST amounting to ₹1,11,60,830 to the supplier during July 2017 to January 2019. Investigation revealed that the supplier filed GSTR-1 showing sales but did not deposit the GST with the Government while filing GSTR-3B returns. The department issued a show cause notice under Section 73 alleging wrongful availment of ITC and confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act requires that ITC can be availed only when tax charged on the supply has actually been paid to the Government. However, the Court observed that a purchasing dealer has no mechanism to verify whether the supplier has deposited the tax with the Government and cannot control the supplier’s compliance.The Court held that denial of ITC to a bona fide purchaser who has paid tax to the supplier would impose an impossible and disproportionate burden and would defeat the objective of ITC, which is to avoid double taxation. Accordingly, the Court held that Section 16(2)(c) is constitutionally valid but must be read down so that ITC cannot be denied in bona fide transactions where the purchaser has paid GST to the supplier and there is no fraud or collusion.Since the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under Section 73 and there was no allegation of fraud or collusion, the transaction was held to be bona fide. The impugned order dated 17.05.2022 denying ITC was set aside and the respondents were directed to allow ITC of ₹1,11,60,830 to the petitioner.Cases Referred by Court:B.R. Enterprises vs. State of U.P.CST vs. RadhakrishanOn Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Government of NCT of DelhiCommissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. Arise India Ltd.Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner Trade and Tax, DelhiCommissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd.National Plasto Moulding vs. State of AssamMcLeod Russel India Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaLaxmipat Singhania vs. CITMahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CITJain Brothers vs. Union of India
Sahil Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors. 06-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner purchased rubber products from a supplier and paid GST amounting to ₹1,11,60,830 to the supplier during July 2017 to January 2019. Investigation revealed that the supplier filed GSTR-1 showing sales but did not deposit the GST with the Government while filing GSTR-3B returns. The department issued a show cause notice under Section 73 alleging wrongful availment of ITC and confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act requires that ITC can be availed only when tax charged on the supply has actually been paid to the Government. However, the Court observed that a purchasing dealer has no mechanism to verify whether the supplier has deposited the tax with the Government and cannot control the supplier’s compliance.The Court held that denial of ITC to a bona fide purchaser who has paid tax to the supplier would impose an impossible and disproportionate burden and would defeat the objective of ITC, which is to avoid double taxation. Accordingly, the Court held that Section 16(2)(c) is constitutionally valid but must be read down so that ITC cannot be denied in bona fide transactions where the purchaser has paid GST to the supplier and there is no fraud or collusion.Since the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under Section 73 and there was no allegation of fraud or collusion, the transaction was held to be bona fide. The impugned order dated 17.05.2022 denying ITC was set aside and the respondents were directed to allow ITC of ₹1,11,60,830 to the petitioner.Cases Referred by Court:B.R. Enterprises vs. State of U.P.CST vs. RadhakrishanOn Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Government of NCT of DelhiCommissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. Arise India Ltd.Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner Trade and Tax, DelhiCommissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd.National Plasto Moulding vs. State of AssamMcLeod Russel India Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaLaxmipat Singhania vs. CITMahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CITJain Brothers vs. Union of India
Facts:An FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police alleging that the accused induced a large number of investors by falsely claiming divine powers to triple their money. Around 1,852 victims were cheated of approximately ₹46.40 crores. The police registered a single FIR and treated complaints of other victims as statements during investigation. The Delhi High Court held that each deposit constituted a separate transaction requiring separate FIRs. Court Decision:The Supreme Court held that the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge to the High Court was premature as the investigation had not concluded. The Court observed that whether multiple acts constitute the “same transaction” must be determined based on the facts emerging from the investigation.The Court noted that when offences arise from a common conspiracy and may form part of the same transaction, it is permissible to register one FIR and treat subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC. The police were justified in registering a single FIR alleging criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and treating complaints of other victims as statements.The Court clarified that the Magistrate will determine at the stage of framing of charges whether the acts constitute the same transaction under Sections 220(1) and 223 CrPC, enabling joint trial. If the acts are distinct transactions, separate trials may be conducted subject to Section 219 CrPC.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s answers which mandated separate FIRs for each transaction and allowed the appeal filed by the State.Cases Referred by Court:• S. Swamirathnam vs. State of Madras• Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala vs. Union of India• State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao• State of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav• Amish Devgan vs. Union of India• T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala• Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India• Abhishek Singh Chauhan vs. Union of India• Amanat Ali vs. State of Karnataka• Ravinder Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab• Alok Kumar vs. State of Bihar• Satinder Singh Bhasin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh• Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana• Amandeep Singh Saran vs. State of Delhi• Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs. Union of India
The State (NCT) of Delhi vs. Khimji Bhai Jadeja 06-01-2026
Facts:An FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police alleging that the accused induced a large number of investors by falsely claiming divine powers to triple their money. Around 1,852 victims were cheated of approximately ₹46.40 crores. The police registered a single FIR and treated complaints of other victims as statements during investigation. The Delhi High Court held that each deposit constituted a separate transaction requiring separate FIRs. Court Decision:The Supreme Court held that the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge to the High Court was premature as the investigation had not concluded. The Court observed that whether multiple acts constitute the “same transaction” must be determined based on the facts emerging from the investigation.The Court noted that when offences arise from a common conspiracy and may form part of the same transaction, it is permissible to register one FIR and treat subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC. The police were justified in registering a single FIR alleging criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and treating complaints of other victims as statements.The Court clarified that the Magistrate will determine at the stage of framing of charges whether the acts constitute the same transaction under Sections 220(1) and 223 CrPC, enabling joint trial. If the acts are distinct transactions, separate trials may be conducted subject to Section 219 CrPC.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s answers which mandated separate FIRs for each transaction and allowed the appeal filed by the State.Cases Referred by Court:• S. Swamirathnam vs. State of Madras• Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala vs. Union of India• State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao• State of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav• Amish Devgan vs. Union of India• T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala• Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India• Abhishek Singh Chauhan vs. Union of India• Amanat Ali vs. State of Karnataka• Ravinder Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab• Alok Kumar vs. State of Bihar• Satinder Singh Bhasin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh• Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana• Amandeep Singh Saran vs. State of Delhi• Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs. Union of India
The petitioners challenged assessment orders and show cause notices imposing late fee under Section 47 and penalty under Section 125 of GST Acts for delayed filing of returns. They sought benefit of Amnesty Notification No.07/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, which reduced/waived late fee for specified periods. Some petitioners had filed returns within the amnesty window, while others filed before or after the prescribed period. They contended that imposition of both late fee and general penalty was illegal and contrary to the scheme of the Act.Court Decision:The Court held that late fee under Section 47 is a specific penalty for delay in filing returns and once imposed, general penalty under Section 125 cannot be levied for the same default. Imposition of general penalty in addition to late fee was set aside as unsustainable. The Court upheld applicability of Amnesty Notification No.07/2023 (as amended) only to those who satisfied the conditions specified therein, including filing within the prescribed period. Relief was granted by directing re-computation of late fee in accordance with the notification wherever applicable and by quashing improper penalty components.Cases Referred:Tvl. Jainsons Castors and Industrial Products vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nandanam, Chennai
Kandan Hardware Mart & Others vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others 02-01-2026
The petitioners challenged assessment orders and show cause notices imposing late fee under Section 47 and penalty under Section 125 of GST Acts for delayed filing of returns. They sought benefit of Amnesty Notification No.07/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, which reduced/waived late fee for specified periods. Some petitioners had filed returns within the amnesty window, while others filed before or after the prescribed period. They contended that imposition of both late fee and general penalty was illegal and contrary to the scheme of the Act.Court Decision:The Court held that late fee under Section 47 is a specific penalty for delay in filing returns and once imposed, general penalty under Section 125 cannot be levied for the same default. Imposition of general penalty in addition to late fee was set aside as unsustainable. The Court upheld applicability of Amnesty Notification No.07/2023 (as amended) only to those who satisfied the conditions specified therein, including filing within the prescribed period. Relief was granted by directing re-computation of late fee in accordance with the notification wherever applicable and by quashing improper penalty components.Cases Referred:Tvl. Jainsons Castors and Industrial Products vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nandanam, Chennai
Facts :The petitioners challenged adjudication orders passed under the CGST/UPGST Acts on the ground that neither show cause notices nor orders were effectively served, as they were only uploaded on the GST portal. They contended that they became aware of the orders only during recovery proceedings, by which time the limitation period for appeal had expired. The revenue raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, citing availability of alternative remedy. The issue arose whether such portal upload amounts to valid “communication” triggering limitation.Court Decision:The Court examined Section 169 of the GST Acts along with the concept of “communication” under Section 107 and provisions of the Information Technology Act. It held that mere uploading of notices/orders on the GST portal does not automatically amount to proper communication unless it results in effective service. The Court recognized widespread issues of non-service and denial of opportunity, affecting the right to appeal and principles of natural justice. It entertained the writ petitions despite alternative remedy and adopted a consistent approach of setting aside such ex parte adjudication orders subject to conditions, with directions to provide notices, allow filing of replies, and grant opportunity of hearing before passing fresh orders.Cases Referred:Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd.Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.Riya Construction v. State of U.P.Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner State TaxShubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P.
Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 19-12-2025
Facts :The petitioners challenged adjudication orders passed under the CGST/UPGST Acts on the ground that neither show cause notices nor orders were effectively served, as they were only uploaded on the GST portal. They contended that they became aware of the orders only during recovery proceedings, by which time the limitation period for appeal had expired. The revenue raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, citing availability of alternative remedy. The issue arose whether such portal upload amounts to valid “communication” triggering limitation.Court Decision:The Court examined Section 169 of the GST Acts along with the concept of “communication” under Section 107 and provisions of the Information Technology Act. It held that mere uploading of notices/orders on the GST portal does not automatically amount to proper communication unless it results in effective service. The Court recognized widespread issues of non-service and denial of opportunity, affecting the right to appeal and principles of natural justice. It entertained the writ petitions despite alternative remedy and adopted a consistent approach of setting aside such ex parte adjudication orders subject to conditions, with directions to provide notices, allow filing of replies, and grant opportunity of hearing before passing fresh orders.Cases Referred:Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd.Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.Riya Construction v. State of U.P.Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner State TaxShubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P.
Facts:Audit reports dated 06.12.2022 and 22.02.2023 were issued in respect of the petitioner. Based on the audit observations, the respondent issued a revision notice dated 05.11.2025 under Section 108(1) of the CGST/KGST Act proposing revision of the audit report. The petitioner challenged the notice contending that revision proceedings under Section 108 cannot be initiated merely to revise an audit report without first initiating proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 65(7) of the KGST Act provides that where an audit detects unpaid or short-paid tax or wrongful availment of input tax credit, the proper officer must initiate action under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act. The Court observed that in the present case no proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 had been initiated prior to issuing the revision notice under Section 108.Following the earlier judgment of the same Court, the Court held that revisional powers under Section 108 cannot be invoked to revise an audit report in the absence of proceedings under Sections 73 or 74. Consequently, the revision notice dated 05.11.2025 was held to be without jurisdiction and was quashed, while granting liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:Navayuga Engineering Company Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial TaxesRadha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
NL Tile Art Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial 18-12-2025
Facts:Audit reports dated 06.12.2022 and 22.02.2023 were issued in respect of the petitioner. Based on the audit observations, the respondent issued a revision notice dated 05.11.2025 under Section 108(1) of the CGST/KGST Act proposing revision of the audit report. The petitioner challenged the notice contending that revision proceedings under Section 108 cannot be initiated merely to revise an audit report without first initiating proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 65(7) of the KGST Act provides that where an audit detects unpaid or short-paid tax or wrongful availment of input tax credit, the proper officer must initiate action under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act. The Court observed that in the present case no proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 had been initiated prior to issuing the revision notice under Section 108.Following the earlier judgment of the same Court, the Court held that revisional powers under Section 108 cannot be invoked to revise an audit report in the absence of proceedings under Sections 73 or 74. Consequently, the revision notice dated 05.11.2025 was held to be without jurisdiction and was quashed, while granting liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:Navayuga Engineering Company Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial TaxesRadha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Facts:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.09.2025 issued under Section 73 of the GST enactments for the tax period 2021-2022. The challenge was mainly on the ground that an earlier intimation in Form DRC-01A dated 06.05.2025 and a show cause notice dated 29.05.2025 had already been issued for the same tax period, and therefore another show cause notice could not be issued.Court Decision:The High Court held that there is no bar under the GST enactments for issuance of multiple show cause notices for the same tax period if they relate to different discrepancies or subject matters. The Court observed that the earlier proceedings and the impugned show cause notice dealt with different issues except for a limited overlap relating to exempt supplies.The Court further held that the petitioner should submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice and raise all permissible defences before the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days and contest the proceedings on merits.Cases Referred by Court:Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New DelhiSimplex Infrastructures Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, KolkataAvery India Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaALM Industries Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (AE) Central Goods and ServicesH.A. Shah and Co. vs. Commissioner of Income TaxCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.Workmen of Cochin Port Trust vs. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port TrustSingh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer 18-12-2025
Facts:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.09.2025 issued under Section 73 of the GST enactments for the tax period 2021-2022. The challenge was mainly on the ground that an earlier intimation in Form DRC-01A dated 06.05.2025 and a show cause notice dated 29.05.2025 had already been issued for the same tax period, and therefore another show cause notice could not be issued.Court Decision:The High Court held that there is no bar under the GST enactments for issuance of multiple show cause notices for the same tax period if they relate to different discrepancies or subject matters. The Court observed that the earlier proceedings and the impugned show cause notice dealt with different issues except for a limited overlap relating to exempt supplies.The Court further held that the petitioner should submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice and raise all permissible defences before the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days and contest the proceedings on merits.Cases Referred by Court:Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New DelhiSimplex Infrastructures Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, KolkataAvery India Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaALM Industries Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (AE) Central Goods and ServicesH.A. Shah and Co. vs. Commissioner of Income TaxCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.Workmen of Cochin Port Trust vs. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port TrustSingh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Facts :The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 29 August 2024 arising from a show cause notice for FY 2019–2020, along with certain GST notifications extending limitation. The petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice but did not avail personal hearing. It contended that its reply was not properly considered and sought relief against the demand. The challenge to notifications was also part of a larger batch of cases pending before various High Courts and the Supreme Court.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. It observed that the petitioner had filed a reply which was considered, and therefore the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 31 January 2026 with pre-deposit, with a direction that such appeal shall not be rejected on limitation. The outcome was made subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP concerning validity of the notifications.Cases Referred:DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
India Retail Mart v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors. 16-12-2025
Facts :The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 29 August 2024 arising from a show cause notice for FY 2019–2020, along with certain GST notifications extending limitation. The petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice but did not avail personal hearing. It contended that its reply was not properly considered and sought relief against the demand. The challenge to notifications was also part of a larger batch of cases pending before various High Courts and the Supreme Court.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. It observed that the petitioner had filed a reply which was considered, and therefore the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 31 January 2026 with pre-deposit, with a direction that such appeal shall not be rejected on limitation. The outcome was made subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP concerning validity of the notifications.Cases Referred:DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
