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 Registration Cancelled For Non-Filing of Returns Can Be Restored After Compliance: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that where GST registration is cancelled for non-filing of returns, and the taxpayer furnishes all pending returns and clears tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer may consider dropping the cancellation proceedings in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules.A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that cancellation of GST registration entails serious civil consequences, and therefore, if the taxpayer complies...

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...

Calcutta High Court Denies Summary Judgment In GST Compliance Dispute, Says Trial Mandatory

The Calcutta High Court on 1 April held that objections relating to GST compliance and supply of goods raise triable issues that require a full trial and refused to grant summary judgment in a commercial dispute. Justice Aniruddha Roy was hearing an application under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no real prospect of success. He observed: “Once factual enquiry is required to be made on the basis of the case and...

Delhi High Court Quashes ₹26.72 Crore GST Demand After Taxpayer Given Less Than One Working Day To Respond

The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand order of Rs 26.7 crore against a company engaged in the business of trading and export of branded mobile phones, holding that it was denied a meaningful opportunity of hearing by the tax authorities.A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed that the timeline granted to the petitioner to respond to the Department's queries and to appear for a personal hearing was inadequate and violative of principles of natural...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds State GST Cannot Assess IGST On Imports, Quashes Notice Against Avanti Feeds

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 1 April set aside a show-cause notice issued to Avanti Feeds Limited, holding that State GST authorities have no jurisdiction to assess or recover Integrated GST (IGST) on imported goods. A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar ruled that such powers vest exclusively with customs authorities under the Customs Act. The Bench observed: “Another aspect of this matter which would also require to be noticed is the language of...

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...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Before Scheduled Date Of Hearing

The Bombay High Court has set aside a GST adjudication order passed even before the scheduled date of hearing, holding that it was vitiated by a breach of natural justice. A bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that the order was passed before the scheduled hearing date fixed in the show cause notice. “The impugned order, however, was passed on 30 March 2022 in regard to which, admittedly, no hearing was granted to the petitioner as also no opportunity to file reply to the said...

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...