Madras High Court Grants ITC Refund To Vindhya Spinning Mills, Says Same Input Rate Can't Deny Relief

The Madras High Court on 14 July held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities cannot deny a refund of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) under the inverted duty structure merely because the principal input and the finished product attract the same rate of tax, if other inputs used in manufacturing are taxed at higher rates, leading to accumulation of ITC. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed two writ petitions filed by Vindhya Spinning Mills Private Limited, quashed the refund...

AI Tool Has No Sanction In Law To Prepare And Issue GST Show Cause Notice: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently quashed a GST show cause notice after holding that it had been issued primarily by relying upon an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool, the use of which was not shown to have statutory sanction. The challenge was founded on a document annexed to the show cause notice and uploaded on the department's portal. The document referred to various AI-based aids and included suggestions to "Tighten this further with case-law citation paragraph-wise", convert...

Madras High Court Directs Chennai Corporation To Reimburse Contractor's GST Burden After VAT Change

The Madras High Court on 7 July held that government contractors are entitled to reimbursement of additional GST paid due to the transition from the VAT regime to the GST regime if the change in tax law occurred after the award of contracts. A Bench of Justice C. Saravanan directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to reimburse the GST burden incurred by Sakthi Constructions for the remaining works under government contracts that were awarded before the introduction of GST on 1 July 2017. He...

Madras High Court Directs GST Authorities To Adjust Tax Paid Under Wrong Head Instead Of Seeking Fresh Payment

The Madras High Court has directed the GST authorities to adjust tax already paid under the wrong tax head instead of requiring the taxpayer to make a fresh payment before claiming a refund. It held that a taxpayer who has discharged the entire tax liability within time cannot be penalised merely because the amount was inadvertently deposited under the wrong GST head.Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of the writ petition filed by SYA Homes and set aside the rectification order to the...

Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Order Uploaded A Day After Limitation Expired

The Calcutta High Court has upheld a GST adjudication order even though its summary was uploaded on the common portal a day after the limitation period expired. The court held that the statutory limitation applies to the issuance of the order and not to its subsequent service. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury dismissed a writ petition filed by M. M. Motors and another challenging an adjudication order for the 2018–19 tax period. The petitioners argued that the adjudication order could not be treated...

Madras High Court Quashes Bank Account Attachment Under GST For Lack Of Tangible Material

The Madras High Court on 8 July held that a provisional attachment of a taxpayer's bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be sustained merely by reproducing the statutory language without disclosing any tangible material or reasons to justify the action. Section 83 of the CGST Act empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach a taxpayer's property, including bank accounts, to protect government revenue during the pendency of specified...

Karnataka High Court Says Third Parties Cannot Invoke Art. 226 Against GST Rulings, Dismisses BMRCL Challenge

The Karnataka High Court on 7 July held that a person who is neither the applicant nor the concerned tax authority in an advance ruling proceeding cannot challenge the ruling under Article 226 of the Constitution, as such rulings are binding only on the parties to the proceeding. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind dismissed Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited's (BMRCL) writ petition challenging an order of the Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR),...

GSTAT Launches Token Facility For Appellants Facing Issues In E-Filing Appeals

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has activated the token generation facility for appellants facing issues while filing appeals on its e-filing portal. The facility is available through the scrolling highlights on the portal's home page. A token generated on or before July 31, 2026, will be treated as sufficient compliance with the appeal filing deadline. The appellant must, however, complete the actual filing within 60 days from the date of token generation. The tribunal...

No GST Payable On Machinery Returned For Testing Without Fresh Consideration: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held on 25 June that a company does not incur GST liability when it returns machinery to a seller for testing without any fresh consideration, as the movement does not amount to a taxable supply. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Single Judge's order reducing the penalty imposed on AAM India Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. to Rs.25,000, while directing the Department to refund the remaining amount...

GSTAT Mumbai Rejects Dow Chemical's ₹13.41 Crore IGST Refund Claim, Holds Procurement Services Are Imports

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has held that procurement services received by Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. from its Switzerland-based group entity were imports of services and not intermediary services, making them liable to Goods and Services Tax in India. A division bench of President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta dismissed the company's appeals against the rejection of refund claims exceeding ₹13.41 crore of...

GST Order Need Not Elaborately Deal With Every Submission In Taxpayer's Reply: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a GST adjudicating authority does not elaborately deal with every submission made by an assessee in reply to a show cause notice (SCN), the same cannot lead to a conclusion that the representation was not considered.A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain observed that while Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 obligates the proper officer to consider the noticee's representation before determining...

Tripura High Court Holds CGST Authorities Cannot Reopen Issues Already Taken Up By SGST, Quashes Order

The Tripura High Court on 30 June held that Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) authorities cannot initiate adjudication proceedings on issues that have already been taken up by State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) authorities on the same subject matter. A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit quashed a challenge to a demand cum show cause notice dated 22 July 2024 and an Order in Original dated 3 February 2025 issued under Section 74 of the Central...