Separate GST Liability Orders Must Be Issued To Enable Appeals By Company And MD: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court on 8 April, held that a single, composite GST liability order against a company and its Managing Director cannot be used to deny them independent appellate remedies. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin allowed writ petitions filed by Sugna Metal Limited and its Managing Director, and directed tax authorities to issue separate orders. The judges held: “...,the Managing Director (petitioner in W.P.No.9166 of 2026), after...

Calcutta HC Questions GST Officer's Demand For Personal Appearance When Law Allows Representation Through Counsel

The Calcutta High Court said GST authorities had no basis to insist that a Kanpur-based proprietor appear in person in proceedings over the detention of goods supplied to Maa Kali Traders, especially when the law allows representation through an authorised representative. In an order dated April 7, 2026, Justice Kausik Chanda disposed of a writ petition arising from the detention of a consignment of pan masala and the vehicle carrying it, which had been intercepted while in transit. The Court...

GSTAT Delhi Orders Ahmedabad East Infra LLP To Refund ₹1.20 Crore To Homebuyers In Anti-Profiteering Case

The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) directed Ahmedabad East Infrastructure LLP to refund ₹1.20 crore to homebuyers after finding that input tax credit (ITC) benefits under GST were not passed on, along with interest at 18 percent from the date of collection of the higher amount. The Principal Bench, comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad, by order dated April 2, 2026, confirmed the findings of the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering and held the developer in violation of the...

GSTAT New Delhi Finds No Profiteering By Samridhi Realty After Excess ITC Benefit Passed To Buyers

The New Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 2 April, held that there is no contravention of anti-profiteering provisions where a developer has already passed on input tax credit (ITC) benefits to homebuyers in excess of the amount required under Section 171 of the CGST Act. A Division Bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta disposed of proceedings against Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd. and accepted the Director General of...

GSTAT New Delhi Holds No ITC Benefit Arises For Homebuyers In Fully Post-GST Construction

On 2 April, the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi, held that no input tax credit (ITC) benefit was required to be passed on to homebuyers where the entire construction and transaction took place after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime came into force. Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain upheld the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report dated 21 August 2025 in DG Anti Profiteering v. Sobha Limited. He observed: ...

GSTAT New Delhi Confirms No Profiteering By IJM Raintree Park, Dismisses Homebuyer's Objections

The New Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 1 April upheld the closure of anti-profiteering proceedings, finding that no additional input tax credit benefit accrued to the developer after the introduction of GST. A Bench of Judicial Member Mayank Kumar Jain rejected objections raised by a homebuyer against the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report dated 8 January 2025 concerning alleged non-passing of GST input tax credit benefits in a...

Rajasthan High Court Defreezes Accounts As GST SCN Only Uploaded On Portal, Never Served

The Rajasthan High Court has directed de-freezing of the bank accounts of business entities and their proprietors from Sawai Madhopur after noting their submission that the SCN concerning their GST liability was only uploaded on the portal without being served through any other prescribed mode. Granting interim relief, a division bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal said it would be just and proper to allow operation of the accounts, subject to the deposit of 10% of...

Pigmy Agents Are Employees, Commission Paid Them Not Subject To GST: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on 8 April, held that banks engage pigmy (deposit collection) agents as employees, not independent service providers. Therefore, the commission paid to them does not attract Goods and Services Tax (GST). A Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank's writ petition and quashed all show cause notices issued by GST authorities under the reverse charge mechanism. He held: “The show cause notices issued by the respondent proceed on an...

TTD A "Governmental Authority" For GST, 12% Rate For Contractors Not Automatic: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 March 2026 held that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) qualifies as a “Governmental Authority” and “Governmental Entity” under GST notifications. However, the Court clarified that contractors can claim the concessional 12% GST rate only if the works they execute meet the conditions specified in the notifications. A Division Bench comprising Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by contractors who executed...

GST Proceedings Against A Dissolved Company Lack Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 March held that GST proceedings against a non-existent or dissolved company lack jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar set aside an assessment order passed against Tata Capital Limited, observing: “The proceedings, which had been initiated, against the dissolved company, before the appointed date, would now have to be taken up against the petitioner company and not the dissolved...

Valid GST Notice Must Disclose Details And Basis of Liability: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 2 April held that a GST show cause notice lacking specific allegations, supporting material, and proper reasoning is legally unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. A Division Bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Alka Sarin set aside a show cause notice issued to Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., observing: “Before raising a demand, the purpose of putting an assessee to notice, is to make the assessee aware of the department's...

GST Refund Limitation Must Exclude COVID Period Under Section 54: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 11 March held that while computing the limitation period under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of exclusion of time during the COVID-19 period must be granted. Section 54 governs the process for claiming refunds of tax, interest, or any other amount paid under GST.A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar set aside the rejection of a GST refund application filed by McWane India Private Limited on the ground of...