GST Daily Updates
10 September 2026
—
GST Laws
Supreme Court
1. Commissioner of CGST Delhi (South) v. Bureau of Energy Efficiency – (2026) taxcode.in 61 SC
Appeal dismissed after appellant conceded Tribunal relied on an unchallenged decision that had already attained finality
The Supreme Court condoned the delay and dismissed the civil appeal after counsel for the appellant fairly stated that the Tribunal had relied on a decision which had not been challenged and had therefore attained finality. The Court treated that statement as decisive and held that, in view of that position, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. Pending applications were also disposed of. The order shows that once the foundation of the Tribunal’s reasoning was accepted to be final and unassailed, no further interference was warranted in the appeal.
High Courts
2. Zealhr India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka – (2026) taxcode.in 1479 HC
Writ court restores GST demand proceedings where assessee later produced documents and address-change dispute remained unconsidered
The Karnataka High Court set aside the adjudication order, rectification order and garnishee notice, and restored the GST proceedings for fresh consideration. The Court noted that the demand had been confirmed largely because the petitioner had not produced records despite repeated notices, but the petitioner later furnished letters of undertaking and other documents to support zero-rated supplies and claimed voluntary discharge of mismatch liability. The Court also found that the respondent had not considered the petitioner’s claim regarding an uploaded change of address. Relief was made conditional on deposit of 10% of the tax demand and filing of supporting documents with reconciliation.
3. Rajeshwari Lorry Service v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1480 HC
Ex parte GST adjudication quashed as court grants fresh hearing on ITC mismatch and reversal explanation
The Karnataka High Court interfered with an ex parte GST adjudication that had proceeded without the petitioner’s participation. The Court noted the petitioner’s explanation that excess input tax credit had already been reversed in the annual return and that a supplier’s certificate explained a B2C declaration due to the registration status at the relevant time. Holding that these circumstances deserved examination, the Court quashed the adjudication order and garnishee notice and restored the matter to the department. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the demand and produce supporting documents, after which the respondent must pass a reasoned order.
4. Bagavathi Shipping Services v. Deputy State Tax Officer (ST-2) Ettayapuram Circle and Anr. – (2026) taxcode.in 1438 HC
GST appeal rejected as time-barred; writ court cannot extend limitation beyond statutory appeal period
The Madras High Court affirmed rejection of a GST appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and the additional 30-day grace period. The Court held that there was no provision for condoning delay beyond the statutory window, and that neither the writ court nor the writ appellate court could extend limitation. The appellant’s arguments on lack of hearing and absence of liability were not accepted because the threshold issue was the admitted delay. The Court therefore upheld the rejection order and declined interference with the Single Judge’s decision.
5. Anjani Kumar Singh v. Addnl. Commissioner (CCO) of CGST and Central Excise and Anr. – (2026) taxcode.in 1454 HC
Writ remedy declined after service tax exemption claim failed for want of supporting contract and tender documents
The Patna High Court declined to interfere with the service tax adjudication order, holding that the petitioner’s exemption claim had not been proved. The Court noted that the adjudicating authority had considered the defence, but found that no relevant work order or agreement was produced to correlate receipts with exempt services. The petitioner also failed to place the tender document before the authority or the Court and had not filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit. In those circumstances, the Court held that extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not warranted, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue any other remedy available in law.
6. BA Continuum India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1460 HC
Section 107 appeal must be decided on merits; dismissal for non-attendance and non-prosecution is impermissible
The Bombay High Court quashed an appellate order that had rejected a GST appeal for non-attendance and non-compliance. The Court held that Section 107 requires the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits by a written order stating the points for determination, the decision, and reasons. Relying on earlier precedent, it reiterated that an appeal under Section 107 cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution merely because the appellant is absent. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision on merits, with the petitioner undertaking to appear and cooperate.
7. Cart Infralog Ltd. and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner HQ Anti-Evasion Unit and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1462 HC
Department cannot deny ITC to bona fide buyer for supplier default; Section 74 cannot be used to bypass limitation
The Calcutta High Court quashed an order in original and consequential recovery notice after finding that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case. The Court held that input tax credit could not be denied to a bona fide purchaser merely because the supplier defaulted or invoices were not reflected in GSTR-2A, especially when the department had already initiated proceedings against the supplier. It further held that Section 74 had been invoked mechanically to overcome the limitation under Section 73(10), without material particulars of fraud or suppression. The Court also held the writ petition was maintainable despite alternative remedy because of natural justice violations and non-speaking findings.
8. Harish Wadhwani v. Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence – (2026) taxcode.in 1466 HC
Regular bail granted in alleged fake ITC case considering custody, lack of antecedents and filed complaint
The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to the applicant in a GST intelligence case involving alleged fraudulent input tax credit of over Rs. 6.92 crore. The Court noted that a complaint had already been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, he had been in custody since 15 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take time. On those considerations, the Court held that bail was justified. Release was ordered on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one solvent surety, and the bail order was to remain in force until disposal of the case.
9. Pareek Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs (Chennai II) Imports Custom House and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1447 HC
Prospective customs amendment cannot defeat provisional release claim for imports covered by earlier bill of lading
The Madras High Court held that a customs notification amendment effective from 15 June 2026 could not be applied to imports covered by a Bill of Lading dated 21 May 2026. The Court reiterated that, unless a notification expressly operates retrospectively, it applies only prospectively. On that basis, the respondents could not refuse to consider the importer’s request for provisional release under Section 110A by relying on the later amendment. Finding no distinguishing feature from an earlier common order on similar goods, the Court directed consideration of provisional release and, upon compliance with conditions, release of the goods.
10. Zigma Machinery & Equipment Solutions v. Assistant Commissioner Coimbatore – I Division – (2026) taxcode.in 1446 HC
Electronic credit ledger blocking upheld as Section 79 permits wide recovery powers including negative blocking
The Madras High Court held that an earlier interim order staying recovery proceedings did not undo the prior blocking of the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger. The Court clarified that amounts in the ledger could not be debited for recovery while the stay operated, but the blocking order itself remained unaffected. Examining Section 79, the Court held that its recovery powers are wide and include blocking of the credit ledger, even negative blocking. It distinguished Rule 86A as a provisional pre-determination measure and held that Section 79 operates at the post-determination recovery stage. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
11. Unnikrishnan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1440 HC
Order passed against deceased assessee set aside, but remand made conditional on part-deposit by legal heirs
The Madras High Court quashed an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased assessee, holding that such an order is non est in law. However, the Court also relied on Section 93(1)(b) to hold that the legal heirs could still be liable out of the deceased’s estate. Noting the petitioners’ prolonged silence and prior interim protection, the Court declined an unconditional remand. Instead, it remitted the matter for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 50% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply with documents. If the conditions are complied with, the authority must pass a fresh reasoned order after notice.
12. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. – (2026) taxcode.in 1459 HC
Technical expert report on imported EV battery components could not be brushed aside without scientific rebuttal
The Bombay High Court quashed a customs order denying concessional duty on imported battery management systems and cell supervisory circuits for electric vehicle manufacturing. The Court held that the adjudicating authority had brushed aside the VJTI technical opinion, which concluded after physical inspection and component-level analysis that the goods could not be understood as PCBAs, without any reasoned technical rebuttal or counter-expert opinion. Since the dispute turned on specialised technical issues, the Court held that such evidence could not be rejected lightly. It also declined to relegate the petitioner to an alternate appeal, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, and directed the authority to hear the petitioner expeditiously.
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT)
13. Ferrous Infra Solutions v. Commissioner SGST Uttar Pradesh and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 124 GSTAT
Appellate authority cannot remand GST dispute; it must itself verify documents and decide appeal on merits
The GST Appellate Tribunal held that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) acted beyond jurisdiction by sending the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for verification of documents and tax figures. The Tribunal read Section 107 as allowing only confirmation, modification or annulment, and held that remand is expressly barred. It said the appellate authority may call for further material and conduct inquiry, but must itself decide the appeal by a reasoned order. Because the appellate order referred the matter back instead of finally deciding it, the Tribunal set it aside to that extent and remanded the case to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication.
14. Commissioner of CGST & CE v. Peechattu Glass World – (2026) taxcode.in 123 GSTAT
GST appellate authority must itself decide remanded issues; remitting verification to original authority is beyond power
The GST Appellate Tribunal set aside the portion of an appellate order that sent the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for verification of remaining tax demand and documents. It held that Section 107 permits the appellate authority only to confirm, modify or annul the order appealed against, after such further inquiry as may be necessary, and expressly bars remand. The Tribunal found that the JC (Appeals) had failed to decide the balance demand on merits and had not passed the speaking order required by Section 107(12). The Revenue’s appeal was therefore allowed to that extent, with a fresh decision directed at the appellate level.
15. Commissioner of CGST & CE v. K A Traders – (2026) taxcode.in 122 GSTAT
Appellate authority cannot remand GST rectification matter; it must verify documents and conclude appeal itself
The GST Appellate Tribunal held that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to remand a GST matter back to the original adjudicating authority for verification of documents and tax computation. The Tribunal read Section 107 as confining the appellate authority to confirmation, modification or annulment, after necessary inquiry, and noted the statutory bar against referring the case back. It found that the rectification order had not finally decided the balance demand and had instead given the original authority a second chance, which was impermissible. The impugned order was set aside to that extent, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh decision.
Other Laws
High Courts
16. Asian Copiers v. Commissioner of Customs (Chennai Ii) Imports and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1448 HC
Provisional release claim allowed where later customs amendment could not apply to earlier bill of lading
The Madras High Court held that the customs amendment relied upon by the department could not govern imports covered by a Bill of Lading dated 29 May 2026, since the amendment came into force only on 15 June 2026 and no retrospective operation was shown. The Court reiterated that a notification operates prospectively unless stated otherwise. It therefore rejected the respondents’ refusal to consider provisional release under Section 110A on the basis of that amendment. Following its earlier common order on similar goods and finding no distinguishing feature, the Court directed the respondents to consider provisional release and, upon compliance with conditions, release the goods provisionally.
