GST INDIA Biz

S.No	Name	Date of Order	Subject	Actions
1	Ashirwad Food Industries vs Union of India & Ors.	09-02-2026	No fresh pre-deposit for an appeal before GSTAT where the amount already deposited at the first appellate stage exceeds the pre-deposit on the reduced demand; limitation protected while GSTAT was not functional.	View Download
BackgroundThe petitioner challenged Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2025 to the extent it confirmed the demand of the Order-in-Original dated 04.02.2025 along with interest and penalty, invoking writ jurisdiction because GSTAT did not appear to be fully functional. The original demand was about Rs.2.38 crore, against which the petitioner had made a pre-deposit of Rs.23,85,182/- at the first appellate stage; the first appellate authority scaled the demand down to about Rs.40 lakh, the 20% pre-deposit on which would be about Rs.8 lakh. The Department submitted that GSTAT members had been appointed and e-filing was permitted, and that no coercive measures are initiated once a 20% pre-deposit is made. The issue was whether any further pre-deposit was required for the GSTAT appeal and how limitation would be treated.Final VerdictHaving perused the record, the Court found substance in the petitioner’s contention and held that, considering the deposit of Rs.23.85 lakh already made at the first appellate stage, there was no question of making any further pre-deposit for instituting an appeal against the order dated 30.06.2025. The Court further directed that if the appeal is filed within four weeks, GSTAT shall decide it on merits without adverting to limitation, since the petitioner was bona fide pursuing the writ and its impression that it could not file the appeal (the Tribunal not taking up appeals) was neither unreasonable nor lacking in bona fides. If the portal does not accept the appeal, physical filing is permitted and must be accepted without insisting on any fresh pre-deposit. All contentions on merits were left open and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.
Ashirwad Food Industries vs Union of India & Ors. 09-02-2026 No fresh pre-deposit for an appeal before GSTAT where the amount already deposited at the first appellate stage exceeds the pre-deposit on the reduced demand; limitation protected while GSTAT was not functional. BackgroundThe petitioner challenged Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2025 to the extent it confirmed the demand of the Order-in-Original dated 04.02.2025 along with interest and penalty, invoking writ jurisdiction because GSTAT did not appear to be fully functional. The original demand was about Rs.2.38 crore, against which the petitioner had made a pre-deposit of Rs.23,85,182/- at the first appellate stage; the first appellate authority scaled the demand down to about Rs.40 lakh, the 20% pre-deposit on which would be about Rs.8 lakh. The Department submitted that GSTAT members had been appointed and e-filing was permitted, and that no coercive measures are initiated once a 20% pre-deposit is made. The issue was whether any further pre-deposit was required for the GSTAT appeal and how limitation would be treated.Final VerdictHaving perused the record, the Court found substance in the petitioner’s contention and held that, considering the deposit of Rs.23.85 lakh already made at the first appellate stage, there was no question of making any further pre-deposit for instituting an appeal against the order dated 30.06.2025. The Court further directed that if the appeal is filed within four weeks, GSTAT shall decide it on merits without adverting to limitation, since the petitioner was bona fide pursuing the writ and its impression that it could not file the appeal (the Tribunal not taking up appeals) was neither unreasonable nor lacking in bona fides. If the portal does not accept the appeal, physical filing is permitted and must be accepted without insisting on any fresh pre-deposit. All contentions on merits were left open and the writ petition was disposed of without costs. View Download
2	R.K. TRANSPORT & CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.	13-06-2025	Supplier’s Failure to Deposit GST and State’s Duty to Act under Section 76(2).	View Download
BACKGROUNDThe petitioner had obtained commercial vehicle rental/hiring services and paid the invoices along with GST. The tax paid, however, did not appear in the recipient's GSTR-2A because the supplier had not filed GSTR-01. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to utilise the corresponding ITC.Representations were made to the tax authorities requesting action against the supplier for collecting GST without depositing it with the Government. The authorities took the position that the supplier fell within the Central GST jurisdiction and therefore action could not be initiated by the State authorities.COURT OBSERVATIONThe Court held that the stand of the official respondents was contrary to Section 76(1) and (2) of the Jharkhand GST Act. The provision applies to “every person” who collects an amount representing GST and does not pay it to the Government, including a person who is not registered under the JGST Act.The Court further held that the authorities could not refuse action merely because the supplier was registered under the Central GST authorities. The State authorities were under a duty to initiate proceedings under Section 76(2). The Court also rejected the plea of res judicata because the earlier writ petition had not resulted in adjudication on merits.FINAL VERDICTThe writ petition was allowed with costs of ₹1,00,000/- payable by the supplier to the petitioner. The official respondents were directed to initiate proceedings under Section 76 of the Jharkhand GST Act against the supplier for collecting tax and not crediting it to the State Government.
R.K. TRANSPORT & CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 13-06-2025 Supplier’s Failure to Deposit GST and State’s Duty to Act under Section 76(2). BACKGROUNDThe petitioner had obtained commercial vehicle rental/hiring services and paid the invoices along with GST. The tax paid, however, did not appear in the recipient's GSTR-2A because the supplier had not filed GSTR-01. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to utilise the corresponding ITC.Representations were made to the tax authorities requesting action against the supplier for collecting GST without depositing it with the Government. The authorities took the position that the supplier fell within the Central GST jurisdiction and therefore action could not be initiated by the State authorities.COURT OBSERVATIONThe Court held that the stand of the official respondents was contrary to Section 76(1) and (2) of the Jharkhand GST Act. The provision applies to “every person” who collects an amount representing GST and does not pay it to the Government, including a person who is not registered under the JGST Act.The Court further held that the authorities could not refuse action merely because the supplier was registered under the Central GST authorities. The State authorities were under a duty to initiate proceedings under Section 76(2). The Court also rejected the plea of res judicata because the earlier writ petition had not resulted in adjudication on merits.FINAL VERDICTThe writ petition was allowed with costs of ₹1,00,000/- payable by the supplier to the petitioner. The official respondents were directed to initiate proceedings under Section 76 of the Jharkhand GST Act against the supplier for collecting tax and not crediting it to the State Government. View Download

Total: 2 case laws

No fresh pre-deposit for an appeal before GSTAT where the amount already deposited at the first appellate stage exceeds the pre-deposit on the reduced demand; limitation protected while GSTAT was not functional.

Supplier’s Failure to Deposit GST and State’s Duty to Act under Section 76(2).