GST
Gauhati High Court Asks Authorities To Consider GST Registration Restoration If Taxpayer Clears Dues And Files Returns
The Gauhati High Court has directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration where a taxpayer is willing to furnish pending returns and clear dues, observing that cancellation entails “serious civil consequences.” Justice Anjan Moni Kalita held that if the taxpayer complies with Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, the proper officer shall consider the case and pass appropriate orders. The case arose from a writ petition filed by Apurba Enterprise challenging cancellation of its GST...
Cross-State ITC Transfer Cannot Be Denied on Amalgamation: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the ground that the transferor and transferee companies are located in different States in a case of amalgamation. A Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held, "The transfer of the ITC on amalgamation of the company is permissible as per the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules. Neither of the provision prohibits or debars transfer of the ITC on the...
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...
Uttarakhand High Court Declines Bajaj Auto Writ Against GST Order; Pre-Deposit Requirement Not Ground To Bypass Appeal
The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited challenging a GST adjudication order, holding that the requirement of pre-deposit for availing the appellate remedy cannot be a ground to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism under the GST Act. The bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay noted that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order and, in such circumstances,...
After Pan Products Company Agrees to Deposit ₹3.5 Crore Of GST Demand, Supreme Court Stays Coercive Action
The Supreme Court has directed Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs 3.5 crore in a GST dispute and ordered that no coercive action be taken against it for now. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing the company's challenge to a November 3, 2025, judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to entertain its writ petition. The company had earlier approached the High Court against assessment orders for 2021–22 and 2022–23, contending that...
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...
GSTAT Orders LIC HFL Care Homes To Refund Rs 2.31 Crore To 240 Homebuyers For GST Profiteering
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has held LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd. guilty of profiteering and directed it to refund Rs 2.31 crore with 18% interest to 240 homebuyers for failing to pass on additional input tax credit (ITC) benefits available after the introduction of GST from July 1, 2017. A coram of President Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order in proceedings arising from an investigation by the Director General of...
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Accused In ₹42 Crore GST ITC Fraud Case
The Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to Keyur Dipakkumar Shah, accused of allegedly availing and passing on fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) of around Rs 42 crore under GST laws, noting that he has no criminal antecedents and faces a maximum sentence of five years. “Without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail,” Justice Nikhil S. Kariel said while...
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...
Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹45 Lakh GST Demand Against HUF After Revenue Confirms ITC Reversal
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand against a Hindu Undivided Family after revenue authorities confirmed before the Court that the disputed input tax credit had been reversed prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice.A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was hearing a writ petition challenging orders that had disallowed ITC and raised a demand of over Rs 45 lakh for the financial year 2018–19.The demand stemmed from a show cause notice...
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...