Case Laws – TaxcodeIN

Where GST registration stands cancelled, exclusive service of notice via the GST portal does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 169; Department is required to ensure effective service through alternative permissible modes – Raj Shekhar Pandey Vs. State Tax Officer – Uttarakhand High Court

February 25, 2026

Start Free Trial Now ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device […]

Where GST registration stands cancelled, exclusive service of notice via the GST portal does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 169; Department is required to ensure effective service through alternative permissible modes – Raj Shekhar Pandey Vs. State Tax Officer – Uttarakhand High Court Read Post »

Service of notice only through uploading on portal under the Additional Notices and Orders tab is not proper – Multitech Solutions Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Alipore Charge and Ors. – Calcutta High Court

February 25, 2026

Service of notice only through uploading on portal under the Additional Notices and Orders tab is not proper – Multitech Solutions Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Alipore Charge and Ors. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »

Issuance of composite notices covering multiple financial/assessment years under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/SGST Act is unsustainable – Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. – Kerala High Court

February 24, 2026

Issuance of composite notices covering multiple financial/assessment years under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/SGST Act is unsustainable – Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. – Kerala High Court Read Post »

Whether the service of notices exclusively through the GST portal can be regarded as valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act – Jaipal Singh Vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate and Anr. – Uttarakhand High Court

February 24, 2026

Whether the service of notices exclusively through the GST portal can be regarded as valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act – Jaipal Singh Vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate and Anr. – Uttarakhand High Court Read Post »

An order, which was passed against a dead person, is non-est in law and the same is liable to be set aside – Vijayalakshmi R Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Sivakasi – 2 Assessment Circle – Madras High Court

February 24, 2026

An order, which was passed against a dead person, is non-est in law and the same is liable to be set aside – Vijayalakshmi R Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Sivakasi – 2 Assessment Circle – Madras High Court Read Post »

A quasi-judicial order must speak for itself. It must demonstrate application of the mind to the objection raised. The repetition of the investigative allegation, as the sole ground of rejection, is indicative of the mechanical exercise of power | Cancellation of GST registration is not to be used as a tool of coercion during investigation – Shashi Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Gauhati High Court

February 24, 2026

A quasi-judicial order must speak for itself. It must demonstrate application of the mind to the objection raised. The repetition of the investigative allegation, as the sole ground of rejection, is indicative of the mechanical exercise of power | Cancellation of GST registration is not to be used as a tool of coercion during investigation – Shashi Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Gauhati High Court Read Post »

Clearprobe endocavity or transvaginal probe cover, Ultrasound cover, Laparoscopy camera cover and Interoperative cable cover can be considered as accessories of the respective ultrasound scanner and laparoscopy camera | These two are covered under HSN 9018 which is included in Chapter 90 – In re: Hi Care Remedy Pvt. Ltd. – West Bengal AAR (GST)

February 24, 2026

Clearprobe endocavity or transvaginal probe cover, Ultrasound cover, Laparoscopy camera cover and Interoperative cable cover can be considered as accessories of the respective ultrasound scanner and laparoscopy camera | These two are covered under HSN 9018 which is included in Chapter 90 – In re: Hi Care Remedy Pvt. Ltd. – West Bengal AAR (GST) Read Post »

Whether claims allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal vide the Arbitration Awards be termed as supply under GST Act or not? | Whether GST would be applicable, on the claims allowed vide Arbitration Awards and payment received pursuant to Conciliation Proceedings resulting into the Settlement Agreement? – In re: Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd. – West Bengal AAR (GST)

February 23, 2026

Whether claims allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal vide the Arbitration Awards be termed as supply under GST Act or not? | Whether GST would be applicable, on the claims allowed vide Arbitration Awards and payment received pursuant to Conciliation Proceedings resulting into the Settlement Agreement? – In re: Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd. – West Bengal AAR (GST) Read Post »

Section 130(2) of CGST Act, 2017 does not permit provisional release of goods pending confiscation proceedings by payment of fine in lieu of confiscation | Power to detain or retain goods in transit exists only under Section 129, and in the absence of a valid detention order under Section 129, the authorities cannot retain goods merely because confiscation proceedings under Section 130 are initiated – Authentic Metals Vs. Enforcement Officer and Ors. – Kerala High Court

February 23, 2026

Section 130(2) of CGST Act, 2017 does not permit provisional release of goods pending confiscation proceedings by payment of fine in lieu of confiscation | Power to detain or retain goods in transit exists only under Section 129, and in the absence of a valid detention order under Section 129, the authorities cannot retain goods merely because confiscation proceedings under Section 130 are initiated – Authentic Metals Vs. Enforcement Officer and Ors. – Kerala High Court Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Nahar Homes LLP – GSTAT Principal Bench

February 21, 2026

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Nahar Homes LLP – GSTAT Principal Bench Read Post »

The time limit of six months prescribed under Rule 133 of CGST Rules is directory in nature | Since the provisions of Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act for imposition of penalty have come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 whereas the period of investigation 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, hence the penalty prescribed under the above Section cannot be imposed retrospectively – Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. A J Enterprises – GSTAT Principal Bench

February 21, 2026

The time limit of six months prescribed under Rule 133 of CGST Rules is directory in nature | Since the provisions of Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act for imposition of penalty have come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 whereas the period of investigation 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, hence the penalty prescribed under the above Section cannot be imposed retrospectively – Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. A J Enterprises – GSTAT Principal Bench Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. – GSTAT Principal Bench

February 20, 2026

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. – GSTAT Principal Bench Read Post »

Shaving Foam and Shaving Cream are not the same products under GST and covered by different rates

February 20, 2026

Shaving Foam and Shaving Cream are not the same products under GST and covered by different rates Facts of the Case The applicant, McNROE Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the FMCG business, particularly in the personal hygiene segment, and supplies shaving cream and shaving foam under popular brands. Shaving cream is a semi-solid

Shaving Foam and Shaving Cream are not the same products under GST and covered by different rates Read Post »

Shaving Foam and Shaving Cream are not the same products | Shaving Cream is covered by tariff item 33071010 (GST Rate 5%) and Shaving Foam is covered by tariff item 33071090 (GST Rate 18%) – In re: Mcnroe Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. – West Bengal AAR (GST)

February 20, 2026

Shaving Foam and Shaving Cream are not the same products | Shaving Cream is covered by tariff item 33071010 (GST Rate 5%) and Shaving Foam is covered by tariff item 33071090 (GST Rate 18%) – In re: Mcnroe Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. – West Bengal AAR (GST) Read Post »

GST Advance Ruling: Tobacco leaves, even after undergoing sun-curing, grading, or butting, are subject to GST at 5%

February 19, 2026

Tobacco leaves, even after undergoing sun-curing, grading, or butting, are subject to GST at 5% Facts of the Case The applicant, Om Jai Balajee Construction Private Limited, is engaged in the construction business in Kolkata and intends to enter the business of purchase and sale of tobacco leaves due to a slump in construction. The

GST Advance Ruling: Tobacco leaves, even after undergoing sun-curing, grading, or butting, are subject to GST at 5% Read Post »