BackgroundThe petitioners are suppliers of pulses (Moong Dhal, Thoor Dhal) selling under brand names not registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or Copyright Act, 1957. Under the original 2017 rate notifications, GST attached only to goods "put up in unit container and bearing a registered brand name," so the petitioners' unregistered-brand goods fell outside the tax net, and many traders de-registered brands to escape liability. To plug this, the Government issued amending Notifications No. 27/2017 and 28/2017 dated 22.09.2017 (and the State issued GO(MS) No. 114), expanding the levy to brands bearing an "actionable claim or enforceable right in a court of law." Show cause notices followed, and the petitioners challenged the amending notifications as ultra vires Article 279A and sought to quash the SCNs.FactsThe writ petitioners are suppliers of pulses selling under unregistered brand names. Notification No. 1/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 levied 2.5% Central Tax on dried leguminous vegetables put up in a unit container and bearing a registered brand name, and Notification No. 2/2017 exempted such goods other than those bearing a registered brand name. As the petitioners' goods carried no registered brand name, they were not liable to GST, and a substantial volume of trade in pulses fell outside the tax net.To remedy this, the Ministry of Finance issued amending Notifications No. 27/2017 and No. 28/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) and Integrated Tax (Rate), all dated 22.09.2017, and the State Government issued GO(MS) No. 114 dated 22.09.2017 (verbatim reproducing the Central notifications), bringing within the levy products bearing a brand name "on which an actionable claim or enforceable right in a court of law is available" (other than where such claim or right was voluntarily foregone, subject to the conditions in Annexure I). The impugned show cause notices were issued to the petitioners as a consequence. The petitioners challenged the amending notifications as ultra vires Article 279A to the extent they affected them and sought to quash the SCNs as null and void.The petitioners primarily relied on Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Private Limited. The respondents, through the Additional Solicitor General, contended that GST Council recommendations are not binding in the sense that the Government need not reproduce a mirror image, also relying on Mohit Minerals; they submitted that drafting mistakes in the recommendation of the 21st GST Council meeting (09.09.2017) were rectified through Notifications 27/2017 and 28/2017, and that these were duly ratified in the 22nd GST Council meeting held on 06.10.2017. Two issues thus arose: whether notifications under Sections 9 and 11 could go beyond the Council's recommendations, and whether the GST Council had the power to ratify such notifications.Court Observations (Verbatim)Para 1: "Taxation is often a cat and mouse game between the authority and the assessee. The authority spreads the net and seeks to ensnare the assessee who makes every effort to slip away. The game may witness more than one round with fluctuating fortunes."Para 10 (applying Mohit Minerals): "While the GST Council's function is to make recommendations, the Central Government has the power to issue notifications. From the language of Sections 9 and 11 of the Act, it is seen that the notification by the Government will have to be 'on the recommendations' of the Council. In other words, the notification should be preceded by the recommendations... applying the very same yardstick, the recommendations of the GST Council will bind the Government when it issues statutory notifications under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act."Para 14: "A bare comparison of the notifications with the Council recommendations would show that there has been an addition of the words 'enforceable right in a court of law'... It is too obvious that the expressions 'actionable claim' and 'enforceable right in a court of law' are not synonymous. While actionable claims may be enforceable rights, the vice versa may not hold good... The Government had gone over and above what was recommended by the GST Council... We are of the view that the additions lack the foundation of recommendation and it is not 'on the recommendation' of the GST Council. Thus, the impugned notifications by the Central Government as well as the State Government have to be declared as ultra vires the parent statute insofar as they incorporate the expression 'enforceable right in a court of law'. Minus this expression, the notifications are intra vires."Para 16: "The power of GST Council is traceable to Article 279A of the Constitution of India. Article 279A empowers the GST Council to make recommendation with respect to the matters set out in Article 279A(4). The power to ratify has no where been conferred."Para 17 (quoting Marathwada University): "These principles of ratification, apparently do not have any application with regard to exercise of powers conferred under statutory provisions. The statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. It is ab initio void and cannot be ratified."Para 19–20: "...the power to ratify should also be conferred explicitly or by necessary implication. Neither the Constitution nor any statute has invested the GST Council with the power of ratification. We, therefore, hold that ratification made by the GST Council in 22nd meeting is without jurisdiction... Since the impugned show cause notices are a fallout of the impugned notifications, they are liable to be set aside and stand set aside. Liberty is given to the department to issue fresh show cause notices if they can be issued in terms of the impugned notifications to the extent they have been held valid."VerdictThe writ petitions were allowed. The impugned notifications of the Central and State Governments were declared ultra vires the parent statute insofar as they incorporate the expression "enforceable right in a court of law"; minus that expression, the notifications are intra vires. The ratification made by the GST Council in its 22nd meeting was held to be without jurisdiction. The impugned show cause notices, being a fallout of the impugned notifications, were set aside, with liberty to the department to issue fresh SCNs in terms of the notifications to the extent held valid. Cases Referred by the CourtRelied upon / applied by the Court:Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited — (2022) 10 SCC 700 (relied on by both sides; ratio that the Government is bound by GST Council recommendations in rule-making extended to notifications under Sections 9 and 11)State of Tamil Nadu vs. P. Krishnamurthy — (2006) 4 SCC 517 (parameters for striking down subordinate legislation)Marathwada University vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan — (1989) 3 SCC 132 (ratification is alien to exercise of statutory power)Brunda Infra (P) Ltd. vs. Commr. of Central Tax — (2025) 139 GSTR 657 (Telangana HC) (ratification cannot be equated to recommendation; post-issuance ratification gives no life to a notification)Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. vs. Sunil — (2006) 5 SCC 96 (ratification assumes an invalid act retrospectively validated)Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji — (1971) 3 SCC 844 (authorities have no inherent power; power must be conferred)Hartman vs. Hornsby — 142 Mo 368, 44 SW 242, 244 (meaning of "ratification")Referred and distinguished (Section 168A context):M/s. Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India — WP No. 17184 of 2024 & batch, dated 12.06.2025 (Madras HC, Single Judge) — its reasoning that the "Government may decline to act on the recommendation but cannot act without it" was found appositeOasys Cybernetics Pvt Ltd vs. STO, Veppery Assessment Circle — (2025) 36 Centax 228 (Mad.) (Division Bench confirmation of Tata Play)The Court noted divergent High Court views on Section 168A and that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4240 of 2025 

BackgroundThis is the Revenue's appeal against a Single Judge order dated 11.04.2023 (a common order in a batch led by Sri. Chandrashekaraiah v. State of Karnataka) which had allowed the writ petitioner's (Sadguru Infratech's) writ and issued directions to the tax authorities and contracting parties. The writ petitioner, a sub-contractor in a lift irrigation works contract, had challenged interest demands and recovery action for delayed GST payment, contending the rates were fixed pre-GST and did not include GST. The Revenue confined its appeal to the directions issued to the tax authorities.FactsThe writ petitioner, registered under KVAT and later under GST with effect from 01.07.2017, is a sub-contractor and constituent of the main contractor (a JV) awarded a lift irrigation and canal works contract by Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL). The main contract dated 06.03.2017 and the sub-contract dated 24.06.2017 were both entered into at the Schedule of Rates prevailing under the VAT regime, which did not include the element of GST. With the GST Acts coming into force on 01.07.2017, the works contract became subject to GST at 18% (01.07.2017 to 21.08.2017) and 12% thereafter, increasing the writ petitioner's tax liability. The writ petitioner filed its returns for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 belatedly, with delay in payment of self-assessed tax occurring on as many as twenty-six occasions, ranging from one day to 338 days.The GST authorities issued a notice dated 13.02.2020 in Form GST ASMT-10 demanding interest on delayed payment under Section 50, followed by a notice dated 19.02.2020, and initiated recovery by a notice dated 18.03.2020 in Form GST DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(c) to the writ petitioner's banker. The Single Judge allowed the writ and, among other directions, permitted petitioners to file returns/amended returns post-01.07.2017 by calculating differential tax in a prescribed manner without insisting on interest, penalty or limitation, directed the GST authorities not to take precipitative action for six months, and directed reimbursement of the differential tax by the concerned employer. The Revenue appealed only against the directions to the tax authorities, contending that interest under Section 50 is mandatory with no discretion to waive or reduce, and that there is no provision enabling filing or amendment of returns in the manner directed. The short question was whether the Single Judge could have issued such directions to the tax authorities.Court Observations (Verbatim)Para 9: "The dispute as to whether the writ petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement of the incremental tax paid or payable by it on account of the levy of GST is strictly a matter between the contracting parties - writ petitioner and the main contractor - with whom it had entered into the contract. The contract between the said parties or the contract between the main contractor and KNNC would not alter the statutory scheme for the levy of GST... The question of the levy of GST, assessment, recovery, and enforcement is a matter of statutory prescription."Para 10: "It is well settled that the liability to pay interest on delayed payment of tax under a fiscal statute arises by operation of law, leaving no discretion in the authority to waive or reduce, if the statute makes no such provision (see Pratibha Processors v. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 101). The directions in the impugned order waiving interest, penalty, and limitation, and permitting the filing or amendment of returns in a manner not contemplated by the statute, therefore cannot be sustained."Para 11: "In view of the above, the directions issued permitting the filing of any revised returns contrary to the provisions of the statute are unsustainable. The blanket directions to waive the penalty, interest under the GST Acts or the limitation for filing returns/revised returns are also unsustainable."Para 12: "The controversy as to which party is required to bear the incremental tax burden arising on account of the change in the tax regime is, in essence, one between the contracting parties. In the context of such a dispute, no directions could be issued to the tax authorities regarding the levy, assessment, and collection of tax, penalty, or interest."Para 13: "In the aforesaid view, the direction issued to the respondents to reimburse the tax is required to be construed as a direction only to the concerned party with whom the writ petitioner had entered into the contract and not to the tax authorities."VerdictThe Revenue's appeal was allowed. The Division Bench held that interest under Section 50 arises by operation of law with no discretion to waive, and that directions waiving interest, penalty and limitation and permitting filing/amendment of returns contrary to the statute are unsustainable. The direction to reimburse tax was construed as binding only the contracting party (main contractor), not the tax authorities. The impugned Single Judge order, insofar as it relates to W.P. No. 10163/2020, was set aside.Cases Referred by the CourtPratibha Processors v. Union of India — (1996) 11 SCC 101 (relied upon: liability to pay interest on delayed tax under a fiscal statute arises by operation of law, leaving no discretion to waive or reduce absent statutory provision)Order under challenge (not a precedent):Sri. Chandrashekaraiah & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka — W.P. No. 9721/2019 and connected matters (including W.P. No. 10163/2020), decided 11.04.2023 (the impugned common Single Judge order) 

BACKGROUNDThe appellant is engaged in the activity of transportation of goods by road. The department received third-party TDS data from the Income Tax Department showing gross receipts of Rs. 16,90,38,430/- by the appellant under Sections 194C/194H/194I/194J of the Income Tax Act. The department issued summons requiring the appellant to submit Income Tax Returns, TDS Returns, Balance Sheet, 3CD, Trial Balance and service-wise receipts chart. The appellant did not comply. The department alleged that the appellant had rendered taxable services without discharging service tax liability and issued Show Cause Notice No. 54/2016 dated 09.09.2019 proposing recovery of service tax of Rs. 2,08,93,150/- along with interest and penalties. The demand was confirmed by the Principal Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 06.01.2022, holding the appellant to be a GTA. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal before CESTAT.COURT OBSERVATIONS (VERBATIM)On the statutory definition and twin conditions for GTA (Para 4.2):"It is clear that to be called 'Goods Transport Agency' a person should fulfill two conditions, namely: a) It should provide service in relation to transport of goods by road; b) It should issue consignment note, by whatever name called."On the distinction between GTA and GTO — from Jaikumar Fulchand Ajmera (Para 4.3):"We observe that since GTA definition has used the words, 'in relation to', it means that for being a GTA, it should provide service to a person in relation to transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage. The service provided is a single composite service which may include various intermediary and ancillary services such as loading/unloading, packing/unpacking, transshipment, temporary warehousing. For the service provided, GTA issues a consignment note and the invoice issued by the GTA for providing the said services includes the value of intermediary and ancillary services. In such a case, the intermediary or ancillary activities are to be treated as part of GTA service... Whereas GTO is the activity simpliciter for transport of goods by roads without issuance of Consignment Note, irrespective transporter being GTA or not."On the definition of GTA remaining unchanged under negative list regime (Para 4.4):"We also observe that the definition of GTA remained the same even after introduction of negative list regime. Service being determined by issuance of consignment note under the statute, it is not within the ambit of a subordinate legislation to create the class of taxable persons by imposing a condition that would, perforce, bring such persons within the tax net."On undisputed facts establishing appellant as GTO (Para 4.5):"(i) Appellant is not registered under Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and hence, is not a GTA; hence, is not at all required to issue a 'consignment note'; (ii) Appellant charges 'mere freight', as agreed, but does not charge 'gross freight'; (iii) Appellant engages merely in the service of providing transportation of goods by road but does not provide the services 'in relation thereof'..."On the Schedule of Responsibilities further establishing GTO character (Para 4.5):"a. Loading of the consignment is done by Safexpress personnel in the vehicles. b. The delivery must be done within transit time and the appellant shall ensure to maintain the same despite various unavoidable causes of delay. c. All waybills as well as transit documents are provided by Safexpress and carried by the appellant. d. Appellant is not responsible for any damage to the property unless it is caused out of his own negligence like rash driving of the driver. e. Appellant will submit the waybills, permits, transit passes etc. at the destination with the due endorsements. f. Unloading of the consignment is done by the recipient at destination."On the final conclusion (Para 5):"Since under GTA it is only such of these services which are in relation to transport of goods by road which are taxable and not the actual transport of goods by road itself. And that appellant has not rendered any service in relation to transport of goods by road like loading/unloading nor even for reimbursing for damage and not issuing the consignment note except mere transport of Goods by road. No evidence to the contrary is produced by the department. Resultantly we hold that appellant's activity is wrongly held to be taxable service of Goods Transport Agency."FINAL VERDICTThe CESTAT set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant is a Goods Transport Operator (GTO) and not a Goods Transport Agency (GTA). The activity of mere transportation of goods by road without issuance of a consignment note and without rendering ancillary services is covered under the negative list under Section 66D(p)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is not liable to service tax. 👍

BACKGROUNDThe petitioners are suppliers of goods. During the course of investigation by the Directorate of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Chennai Zonal Unit, letters were issued by the respondents directly to the customers of the petitioners, who were liable to make payment to the petitioners in respect of goods supplied. One such customer, upon receipt of such a letter, remitted a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs directly to the GST authorities. This had earlier been the subject matter of W.P. No. 20067 of 2021, wherein the same petitioner (MNS Enterprises) had sought refund of amounts recovered from its customers. That writ petition was disposed of on 04.03.2022 with express findings that such recovery could not have been made either under Section 79(1)(c) or Section 83 of the applicable GST enactments, and the petitioner was granted liberty to apply for refund under Section 54. However, the petitioner did not avail of that remedy. Subsequently, orders-in-original determining tax liability were passed on 28.03.2023, and those orders are subject matter of separate writ petitions. In the present petitions, the petitioners sought a Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a "No Objection Certificate" enabling the petitioners to receive payments from their customers without interference.COURT OBSERVATIONS (VERBATIM)On the invalidity of letters issued before crystallization of tax liability (Para 4):"From the counter affidavit of the respondents, it is clear that a communication was addressed by DGGI Chennai Zonal Unit to Sumangala Steel. At that time the said communication was issued, a tax proposal had been made, but the same had not crystallised into a tax liability. In those circumstances, by order dated 04.03.2022, this Court recorded findings that neither Section 79(1)(c) nor Section 83 could have been pressed into service."On the petitioner not availing refund remedy (Para 4):"For reasons difficult to discern, said petitioner did not adopt this course of action."Final disposal terms (Para 7):"(i) Any letters issued by the respondents to customers of the respective petitioner, prior to the issuance of the order-in-original determining the tax liability of said petitioner, are invalid and cannot be the basis for further action;""(ii) This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to initiate appropriate action for recovery, including by recourse to Section 79(1)(c) of applicable GST enactments pursuant to the orders-in-original; and""(iii) There shall be no order as to costs."FINAL VERDICTThe High Court declared that all letters issued by DGGI to the petitioners' customers prior to the passing of the order-in-original are invalid and cannot be the basis for any further action. However, the department's right to initiate recovery proceedings including under Section 79(1)(c) after passing of the order-in-original is expressly preserved. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. 👐 

BACKGROUNDThe Allahabad High Court passed a final judgment dated 19-12-2025 in Writ Tax No. 2707/2025. The case-type ("WT") indicates a tax-related writ; the substantive tax issue decided by the High Court is not set out in this order. As the State of Uttar Pradesh is the petitioner before the Supreme Court, the High Court ruling was evidently adverse to the State / in favour of the assessee, prompting this challenge.FACTSThe State of Uttar Pradesh filed this Special Leave Petition against the Allahabad High Court order dated 19-12-2025. The petition came with applications for condonation of delay in refiling / curing defects and for exemption from filing the official translation. The matter was listed for admission on 29-05-2026. No appearance was recorded for the respondents (the assessee). The Court disposed of the admission-stage applications and passed interim directions; no issue was decided on merits.COURT OBSERVATIONS (verbatim)"1. Delay condoned.2. Issue notice, returnable after ten weeks.3. There shall be stay of the impugned order till the next date of hearing."FINAL VERDICTDelay condoned; notice issued returnable after ten weeks; and stay granted on the operation of the impugned Allahabad High Court order until the next date of hearing. The matter remains pending and no finding has been rendered on the merits.