GSTN Asks Taxpayers To Seek Rectification Where Adjudication Order Reflects NIL Demand Due To Portal Glitch

The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has advised taxpayers to approach adjudicating authorities for issuance of a rectification order in cases where they are unable to file appeals on the GST portal due to a “NIL” demand reflected in adjudication orders. In an advisory dated April 3, 2026, GSTN noted that taxpayers are facing difficulties in filing appeals in such cases despite underlying disputes on tax liability. The issue arises where taxpayers have made payments towards tax, interest,...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside ITC Block On Suspicion Of Ineligible Credit, Says It Ceases After One Year

The Bombay High Court has recently set aside the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd., holding that such a restriction made on apprehension of fraud cannot continue beyond one year and ceases to operate by law. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe explained that Rule 86A empowers GST authorities to block a taxpayer from using the credit available in its electronic credit ledger if they have reasons to believe that the credit has been wrongly or...

State GST Authorities Cannot Detain Or Confiscate Goods Merely In Transit: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held on 1 April that State GST authorities cannot invoke detention or confiscation powers for goods merely passing through the State in the course of inter-State trade, including on grounds such as valuation discrepancies or mismatch in quantity. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar held that such action exceeds jurisdiction in cases involving inter-State movement under the IGST framework. The Court stated: "Amounts rightfully due to...

Retaining Tax Paid Twice Violates Article 265, Section 54 CGST Limitation Not A Bar: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court at Cuttack held that tax authorities cannot retain amounts deposited twice under a mistaken belief, as such retention would violate Article 265 of the Constitution. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman set aside an order rejecting the refund claim filed by the petitioner, Rajendra Narayan Mohanty, and allowed him to seek a fresh refund. It held: “There is no escape than to say that the Revenue is unjustified to withhold or...

Failure To Reply To SCN Or Absence From Hearing Not Ground To Cancel GST Registration: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on 17 March held that GST registration cannot be cancelled merely because a taxpayer fails to reply to a show cause notice or appear on the date fixed for hearing, and that authorities must record reasons before taking such a drastic step. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran set aside the cancellation of GST registration of Jubair Enterprises and granted the petitioner liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice. The judges held: “A...

After Cancellation Of GST Registration, Show Cause Notice Should Be Served Physically: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that adjudication notice ought to be served through physical mode after cancellation of GST registration, as the taxpayer cannot access the portal thereafter. A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran held: “Once the registration is cancelled and the registered persons thus disabled from working on the Common Portal and in any case, are relieved of obligation to check the Common Portal thereafter, it is wholly natural and...

Karnataka High Court Holds Bona Fide Purchaser Entitled To ITC, Reads Down Rules In Favor Of Instakart

The Karnataka High Court on 9 February 2026 held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied input tax credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax with the government. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar read down Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST / KGST Act and Rule 36(4) of the CGST / KGST Rules to set aside the order denying ITC to Instakart Services Private Limited. He held: “The impugned provisions contained in Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST / KGST Act...

Illegality Of Search Does Not Make Evidence Gathered Inadmissible In GST Fraud Cases: Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has ruled that the legality of search and seizure proceedings does not, by itself, make the material collected during such proceedings inadmissible for initiating action under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, so long as such material is relevant to the issues involved.Section 74 of the CGST Act covers cases of tax not paid, short-paid, erroneously refunded, or Input Tax Credit (ITC) wrongly availed due to fraud, wilful...

Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment Based On GST Proceedings Set Aside, Finds No Independent Material

The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against an individual taxpayer, holding that reopening of assessment was uncalled for where it was based on GST proceedings that had already been set aside by the appellate authority and where no independent material existed to indicate escapement of income. “Apart from this, there is no other material which is in possession of the respondent No.1, which could prove that there has been an escapement of income and hence the...

Anti-Profiteering Interest Liability Arises At Time of Supply, Not Completion Certificate: GSTAT Delhi

Recently, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), in New Delhi, held that liability to pay interest on profiteered amounts arises from the time of supply, that is, when excess consideration is collected from buyers, and not from the date of obtaining a completion certificate. A Single Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order on 19 March in an appeal filed by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) against Unnathi Associates, developer of the...

GSTAT Confirms Anti-Profiteering Demand Against Real Estate Company, Directs Refund Of ₹17.75 Lakh

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 23 March confirmed an anti-profiteering demand against Duville Estates Pvt. Ltd, a real estate developer, directed it to pay Rs. 17,75,622 along with applicable interest to homebuyers. A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain accepting the findings of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), recorded: “the report of the DGAP dated 18.12.2024 is accordingly accepted.” The DGAP had...

Interest On Profiteered Amounts Must Run From Date of Collection: GSTAT New Delhi

The Principle Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at New Delhi on 20 March held that interest on profiteered amounts must be paid from the date of collection of excess amounts.A Single Member Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad rejected the contention that interest should run only from project completion. He wrote: “Rule 133(3)(b)… expressly empowers the Authority to order return of the amount… along with interest… from the date of...