Facts:The assessee, a retired school teacher, had not filed a return for AY 2019-20 as her income was below the taxable limit. During a survey under Section 133A conducted in the premises of a builder group, an Excel sheet allegedly showing cash payments for purchase of shops contained the assessee’s name and PAN. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148A(b) alleging cash payment and reopened the assessment under Section 147, making an addition of ₹13,00,000.Court Decision:The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer relied solely on an Excel sheet found during survey without establishing any correlation between the entries in the sheet and the assessee. The sheet related to a different project and period, whereas the assessee purchased a shop in 2021 and made payments through cheque. The developer also confirmed through a notarized affidavit that no cash payment was received from the assessee.The Tribunal observed that an unsigned Excel sheet found from a third party without corroborative evidence cannot be treated as proof of a cash transaction. As the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate the alleged cash payment or correlate the seized document with the assessee, the addition of ₹13,00,000 was deleted and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.Cases Referred by Court:• PCIT (Central) vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia, Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024, Gujarat High Court (06.03.2024).
Chandra Khilwani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara 20-02-2026
Facts:The assessee, a retired school teacher, had not filed a return for AY 2019-20 as her income was below the taxable limit. During a survey under Section 133A conducted in the premises of a builder group, an Excel sheet allegedly showing cash payments for purchase of shops contained the assessee’s name and PAN. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148A(b) alleging cash payment and reopened the assessment under Section 147, making an addition of ₹13,00,000.Court Decision:The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer relied solely on an Excel sheet found during survey without establishing any correlation between the entries in the sheet and the assessee. The sheet related to a different project and period, whereas the assessee purchased a shop in 2021 and made payments through cheque. The developer also confirmed through a notarized affidavit that no cash payment was received from the assessee.The Tribunal observed that an unsigned Excel sheet found from a third party without corroborative evidence cannot be treated as proof of a cash transaction. As the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate the alleged cash payment or correlate the seized document with the assessee, the addition of ₹13,00,000 was deleted and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.Cases Referred by Court:• PCIT (Central) vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia, Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024, Gujarat High Court (06.03.2024).
Facts :The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 16.11.2024 and order dated 13.01.2025 passed under the GST Act. The proceedings were initiated after cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration pursuant to application dated 29.04.2023. The petitioner contended that notices were not properly served as they were only uploaded on the GST portal. Reliance was placed on judgments holding that portal service alone is insufficient when registration stands cancelled.Court Decision:The Court held that where GST registration is cancelled, the assessee is not expected to monitor the portal, and service only through the portal does not constitute valid service under Section 169. It found that there was failure to ensure effective service and also emphasized the requirement of personal hearing under Section 75(4). The impugned order was quashed with liberty to the Department to issue fresh notice and adjudicate the matter after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred:M/s Ahs Steels v. Commissioner of State TaxesM/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P.Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal PradeshM/s Jaipal Singh v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun
Raj Shekhar Pandey v. State Tax Officer 16-02-2026
Facts :The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 16.11.2024 and order dated 13.01.2025 passed under the GST Act. The proceedings were initiated after cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration pursuant to application dated 29.04.2023. The petitioner contended that notices were not properly served as they were only uploaded on the GST portal. Reliance was placed on judgments holding that portal service alone is insufficient when registration stands cancelled.Court Decision:The Court held that where GST registration is cancelled, the assessee is not expected to monitor the portal, and service only through the portal does not constitute valid service under Section 169. It found that there was failure to ensure effective service and also emphasized the requirement of personal hearing under Section 75(4). The impugned order was quashed with liberty to the Department to issue fresh notice and adjudicate the matter after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred:M/s Ahs Steels v. Commissioner of State TaxesM/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P.Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal PradeshM/s Jaipal Singh v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun
Facts :The petitioners’ goods and vehicles were intercepted and detained under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act on allegations of undervaluation of goods in transit.Orders in Form GST MOV-06 and MOV-10 were issued proposing confiscation and penalty.Petitioners challenged the detention and confiscation proceedings as without jurisdiction and sought release of goods and vehicles.The matters involved multiple writ petitions raising a common issue regarding valuation of goods at the stage of interception.Court Decision:The Court held that at the stage of interception under Section 129, authorities cannot undertake determination of valuation of goods.Issues relating to valuation and tax liability must be examined by the assessing authority and not by officers at check post during transit.Confiscation or penalty merely on the ground of undervaluation of goods in transit is not a valid exercise of power under Section 129/130.The Court also held that one State’s authorities cannot levy penalty or confiscate goods for alleged tax evasion in another State.Accordingly, goods and vehicles seized under the impugned orders were directed to be released.Cases Referred:Alfa Group vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)K.P. Sugandam & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Pattal Andrea and Company vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.Panchi Trades vs State of GujaratShambu Saran Agarwal & Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade 5
Golden Traders & Others vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Others 16-02-2026
Facts :The petitioners’ goods and vehicles were intercepted and detained under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act on allegations of undervaluation of goods in transit.Orders in Form GST MOV-06 and MOV-10 were issued proposing confiscation and penalty.Petitioners challenged the detention and confiscation proceedings as without jurisdiction and sought release of goods and vehicles.The matters involved multiple writ petitions raising a common issue regarding valuation of goods at the stage of interception.Court Decision:The Court held that at the stage of interception under Section 129, authorities cannot undertake determination of valuation of goods.Issues relating to valuation and tax liability must be examined by the assessing authority and not by officers at check post during transit.Confiscation or penalty merely on the ground of undervaluation of goods in transit is not a valid exercise of power under Section 129/130.The Court also held that one State’s authorities cannot levy penalty or confiscate goods for alleged tax evasion in another State.Accordingly, goods and vehicles seized under the impugned orders were directed to be released.Cases Referred:Alfa Group vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)K.P. Sugandam & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Pattal Andrea and Company vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.Panchi Trades vs State of GujaratShambu Saran Agarwal & Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade 5
Facts The petition challenged a show cause notice demanding GST of ₹59,40,000 plus interest on transfer of leasehold rights in MIDC land. The petitioner had assigned leasehold rights for ₹3.30 crore with MIDC’s consent and paid additional premium. Authorities treated the transaction as “supply of services” under Section 7 read with Schedule II and classified it as taxable miscellaneous services. Court DecisionThe Court held that assignment of leasehold rights amounts to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and not a supply of services. It found that the transaction was neither lease nor sub-lease and the petitioner’s rights stood extinguished upon assignment. The activity lacked the essential element of being in the course or furtherance of business required under Section 7 of the CGST Act. Classification under “other miscellaneous services” was rejected as inapplicable. Accordingly, the show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed and set aside. Cases Referred• Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India, (2025) 170
Vidarbha Beverages & Ors. vs. State Tax Officer & Ors. 13-02-2026
Facts The petition challenged a show cause notice demanding GST of ₹59,40,000 plus interest on transfer of leasehold rights in MIDC land. The petitioner had assigned leasehold rights for ₹3.30 crore with MIDC’s consent and paid additional premium. Authorities treated the transaction as “supply of services” under Section 7 read with Schedule II and classified it as taxable miscellaneous services. Court DecisionThe Court held that assignment of leasehold rights amounts to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and not a supply of services. It found that the transaction was neither lease nor sub-lease and the petitioner’s rights stood extinguished upon assignment. The activity lacked the essential element of being in the course or furtherance of business required under Section 7 of the CGST Act. Classification under “other miscellaneous services” was rejected as inapplicable. Accordingly, the show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed and set aside. Cases Referred• Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India, (2025) 170
Court Decision:The writ petition challenged the recovery notice dated 25.11.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-13 by which the petitioner’s bank account was attached for the tax liability of M/s. Trans Car India Private Limited, where the petitioner was a Director.The company had earlier suffered an adverse Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2023. The writ petition filed against that order was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Instead of filing the appeal, the company filed a writ appeal which was also dismissed. Since no relief was obtained against the Order-in-Original, the department proceeded to attach the petitioner’s bank account for recovery.The Court examined Section 89 of the CGST Act relating to liability of directors of a private company. The Court held that under Section 89(1), directors can be held jointly and severally liable for unpaid tax of the company if the tax cannot be recovered from the company, unless the director proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on his part. The burden of proof lies on the director to establish this.The Court held that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to discharge this burden. Therefore, the impugned recovery notice attaching the petitioner’s bank account was quashed and the matter was remitted to the first respondent to pass a fresh order on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner to file a proper reply explaining why recovery should not be made from him. The authority was directed to complete the process within two weeks from receipt of the order.
Khalid Buhari vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise & Another 13-02-2026
Court Decision:The writ petition challenged the recovery notice dated 25.11.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-13 by which the petitioner’s bank account was attached for the tax liability of M/s. Trans Car India Private Limited, where the petitioner was a Director.The company had earlier suffered an adverse Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2023. The writ petition filed against that order was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Instead of filing the appeal, the company filed a writ appeal which was also dismissed. Since no relief was obtained against the Order-in-Original, the department proceeded to attach the petitioner’s bank account for recovery.The Court examined Section 89 of the CGST Act relating to liability of directors of a private company. The Court held that under Section 89(1), directors can be held jointly and severally liable for unpaid tax of the company if the tax cannot be recovered from the company, unless the director proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on his part. The burden of proof lies on the director to establish this.The Court held that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to discharge this burden. Therefore, the impugned recovery notice attaching the petitioner’s bank account was quashed and the matter was remitted to the first respondent to pass a fresh order on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner to file a proper reply explaining why recovery should not be made from him. The authority was directed to complete the process within two weeks from receipt of the order.
Facts:The appellant was issued a demand under Section 74 of the CGST/OGST Act for FY 2018-19 alleging short payment of tax of ₹27,06,634 due to mismatch between tax liability reported in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. The first Appellate Authority held that there was no intention to evade tax and converted the proceedings from Section 74 to Section 73, confirming tax and interest and reducing penalty to 10% of the tax amount. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed a second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.Court Decision:The Tribunal held that once the Appellate Authority concluded that the ingredients of fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement required under Section 74 were not established, the matter could not be finally decided by the appellate authority itself under Section 73. In view of Section 75(2) of the CGST Act, the proper officer who issued the original notice must determine the tax liability treating the notice as one issued under Section 73.The Tribunal observed that the transactions were disclosed through debit notes and credit notes in the books of account but were not correctly reflected in periodic returns. Therefore, the orders of the proper officer and the first Appellate Authority to the extent they treated the case under Section 73 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the proper officer for fresh determination after giving the appellant opportunity to produce documents and amend returns.Cases Referred by Court:• V.S. Products vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals)• Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors.• Hamida vs. Md. Khalil
Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Odisha Commissionerate of CT & GST & Ors. 11-02-2026
Facts:The appellant was issued a demand under Section 74 of the CGST/OGST Act for FY 2018-19 alleging short payment of tax of ₹27,06,634 due to mismatch between tax liability reported in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. The first Appellate Authority held that there was no intention to evade tax and converted the proceedings from Section 74 to Section 73, confirming tax and interest and reducing penalty to 10% of the tax amount. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed a second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.Court Decision:The Tribunal held that once the Appellate Authority concluded that the ingredients of fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement required under Section 74 were not established, the matter could not be finally decided by the appellate authority itself under Section 73. In view of Section 75(2) of the CGST Act, the proper officer who issued the original notice must determine the tax liability treating the notice as one issued under Section 73.The Tribunal observed that the transactions were disclosed through debit notes and credit notes in the books of account but were not correctly reflected in periodic returns. Therefore, the orders of the proper officer and the first Appellate Authority to the extent they treated the case under Section 73 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the proper officer for fresh determination after giving the appellant opportunity to produce documents and amend returns.Cases Referred by Court:• V.S. Products vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals)• Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors.• Hamida vs. Md. Khalil
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2025 confirming GST demand along with interest and penalty.Statutory remedy of appeal before GST Appellate Tribunal was available, but the Tribunal was not fully functional.Petitioner had already deposited ₹23.85 lakhs at the first appellate stage against an original demand of about ₹2.38 crores, later reduced to about ₹40 lakhs.The dispute centered on whether further pre-deposit was required for filing appeal before the Tribunal.Court Decision:Court held that no further pre-deposit is required for filing appeal before GSTAT considering earlier deposit of ₹23.85 lakhs.Petitioner permitted to file appeal within four weeks from the date of order.Tribunal directed to decide appeal on merits without considering limitation if filed within the stipulated time.If electronic filing is not possible, petitioner allowed to file appeal physically and same must be accepted without additional pre-deposit.All issues on merits left open for adjudication by the Tribunal.Writ petition disposed of without costs.
Ashirwad Food Industries vs Union of India & Ors. 09-02-2026
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2025 confirming GST demand along with interest and penalty.Statutory remedy of appeal before GST Appellate Tribunal was available, but the Tribunal was not fully functional.Petitioner had already deposited ₹23.85 lakhs at the first appellate stage against an original demand of about ₹2.38 crores, later reduced to about ₹40 lakhs.The dispute centered on whether further pre-deposit was required for filing appeal before the Tribunal.Court Decision:Court held that no further pre-deposit is required for filing appeal before GSTAT considering earlier deposit of ₹23.85 lakhs.Petitioner permitted to file appeal within four weeks from the date of order.Tribunal directed to decide appeal on merits without considering limitation if filed within the stipulated time.If electronic filing is not possible, petitioner allowed to file appeal physically and same must be accepted without additional pre-deposit.All issues on merits left open for adjudication by the Tribunal.Writ petition disposed of without costs.
Facts The petitioner, a logistics service provider registered under GST, challenged Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4), contending that they impose an impossible burden on recipients to ensure tax payment by suppliers. It was argued that denial of ITC due to supplier default is arbitrary and beyond the control of the recipient. The petitioner sought declaration of the provisions as unconstitutional or alternatively sought reading down to protect bona fide recipients who complied with statutory requirements. Court Decision:The High Court declined to strike down Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4). The Court held that the provisions cannot be declared unconstitutional. However, relying on precedents, the Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely due to default of the selling dealer, unless there is fraud, collusion, or lack of genuineness in the transaction. The matter was considered in light of judicial precedents emphasizing protection of genuine transactions and limiting denial of ITC only in appropriate cases. Cases Referred by Court:• Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India • Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala • Gheru Lal Bal Chand v. State of Haryana • State of Karnataka v. Rajesh Jain • Onyx Designs v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Instakart Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 09-02-2026
Facts The petitioner, a logistics service provider registered under GST, challenged Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4), contending that they impose an impossible burden on recipients to ensure tax payment by suppliers. It was argued that denial of ITC due to supplier default is arbitrary and beyond the control of the recipient. The petitioner sought declaration of the provisions as unconstitutional or alternatively sought reading down to protect bona fide recipients who complied with statutory requirements. Court Decision:The High Court declined to strike down Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4). The Court held that the provisions cannot be declared unconstitutional. However, relying on precedents, the Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely due to default of the selling dealer, unless there is fraud, collusion, or lack of genuineness in the transaction. The matter was considered in light of judicial precedents emphasizing protection of genuine transactions and limiting denial of ITC only in appropriate cases. Cases Referred by Court:• Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India • Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala • Gheru Lal Bal Chand v. State of Haryana • State of Karnataka v. Rajesh Jain • Onyx Designs v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Facts :The petitioner challenged the inability to file an appeal against assessment order dated 15.06.2023 due to delay. The order raised demand towards tax, interest and penalty for FY 2020–21. The petitioner contended that the order was only uploaded on the GST portal and not served physically, and due to closure of business, he did not access the portal. As a result, the petitioner remained unaware of the order and could not file appeal within limitation.Court Decision:The Court held that although the Appellate Authority is bound by limitation under Section 107, in the present case the delay occurred due to reasons beyond the petitioner’s control. It observed that non-consideration of appeal on merits would cause prejudice. Following earlier Division Bench decisions, the Court condoned the delay and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits.Cases Referred:M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors.Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Vikas Chachan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 05-02-2026
Facts :The petitioner challenged the inability to file an appeal against assessment order dated 15.06.2023 due to delay. The order raised demand towards tax, interest and penalty for FY 2020–21. The petitioner contended that the order was only uploaded on the GST portal and not served physically, and due to closure of business, he did not access the portal. As a result, the petitioner remained unaware of the order and could not file appeal within limitation.Court Decision:The Court held that although the Appellate Authority is bound by limitation under Section 107, in the present case the delay occurred due to reasons beyond the petitioner’s control. It observed that non-consideration of appeal on merits would cause prejudice. Following earlier Division Bench decisions, the Court condoned the delay and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits.Cases Referred:M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors.Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Facts (Background):The petitioner alleged that GST officers illegally detained him from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 after calling him to the office of a Chartered Accountant in connection with investigation into fraudulent input tax credit by M/s Kabsan Services Pvt. Ltd. He contended that he was taken into custody without summons and that the formal arrest was shown only on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i). The petitioner sought compensation of ₹10,00,000 for alleged illegal detention.Court Decision:The Court held that the petitioner had been issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act for inquiry and recording of statement. The petitioner acknowledged the summons and appeared before the authorities from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 without raising any objection. The Court further held that Section 70 of the CGST Act does not require issuance of seven days’ prior notice before appearance for inquiry and that attendance pursuant to summons for investigation cannot be treated as detention.The Court observed that the petitioner was formally arrested on 21.06.2025 after ascertainment of his involvement and was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. Since the petitioner had voluntarily attended the inquiry and no illegal detention was established, the claim for compensation was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.Cases Referred by Court:• Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.• D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal• Dikshant vs. State of Maharashtra• FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India• Ram Kotumal Issrani vs. Directorate of Enforcement• Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India
Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha vs. Union of India & Ors. 05-02-2026
Facts (Background):The petitioner alleged that GST officers illegally detained him from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 after calling him to the office of a Chartered Accountant in connection with investigation into fraudulent input tax credit by M/s Kabsan Services Pvt. Ltd. He contended that he was taken into custody without summons and that the formal arrest was shown only on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i). The petitioner sought compensation of ₹10,00,000 for alleged illegal detention.Court Decision:The Court held that the petitioner had been issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act for inquiry and recording of statement. The petitioner acknowledged the summons and appeared before the authorities from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 without raising any objection. The Court further held that Section 70 of the CGST Act does not require issuance of seven days’ prior notice before appearance for inquiry and that attendance pursuant to summons for investigation cannot be treated as detention.The Court observed that the petitioner was formally arrested on 21.06.2025 after ascertainment of his involvement and was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. Since the petitioner had voluntarily attended the inquiry and no illegal detention was established, the claim for compensation was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.Cases Referred by Court:• Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.• D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal• Dikshant vs. State of Maharashtra• FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India• Ram Kotumal Issrani vs. Directorate of Enforcement• Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India
