GST Daily Updates
21 September 2026
—
GST Laws
High Courts
1. Sandeep Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab – (2026) taxcode.in 1522 HC
Anticipatory bail refused in GST cheating case involving forged invoices, non-existent firms, and alleged tax evasion
The High Court declined anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1 in a case alleging conspiracy to induce purchases through brokered transactions, payments into accounts of non-existent firms, forged invoices, and non-deposit of collected GST. The Court held that the allegations were grave and prima facie disclosed complicity, especially as the investigation was at a nascent stage. It found custodial interrogation necessary to trace the manner of the offences and recover connected records. The petitioner’s reliance on an earlier FIR and plea of double jeopardy did not persuade the Court. The petition qua petitioner No.2 had already become infructuous after his arrest during pendency.
2. Nand Kishore Garg v. Assistant Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax – (2026) taxcode.in 1520 HC
Rectification application filed within time cannot be rejected merely because authority failed to decide it within three months
The Court quashed the rejection of the petitioner’s rectification application, holding that an application filed within the prescribed time could not be refused on the ground that more than three months had elapsed without a decision. It interpreted the relevant notification as requiring the authority to endeavour to decide the application within three months, not as extinguishing the power to decide thereafter. The Court found the impugned order inconsistent with that approach and with its earlier direction to consider the application on merits. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to decide the rectification request afresh on merits within three months.
3. Shifa Scrap Traders v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anr. – (2026) taxcode.in 1513 HC
Adjudication under Section 74 restored where service was only by email and reconciliation material was not earlier filed
The High Court quashed the adjudication order and restored the proceedings after finding that the intimation and show cause notice appeared to have been served only by email. It accepted the petitioner’s contention that reconciliation material and supporting documents could now be placed on record to explain the GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch. While granting relief, the Court did not examine the petitioner’s challenge to the very invocation of Section 74 and left that issue open for consideration in the restored proceedings. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax demand and file its reply and documents within the stipulated time.
4. Genius Construction v. State of Bihar and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1510 HC
Appellate authority cannot dismiss GST appeal for non-appearance without deciding points for determination and reasons
The High Court set aside the appellate order dismissing the appeal in limine for non-appearance, holding that Section 107 required a written order stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and reasons. It found that the appellate authority had merely reproduced the grounds of appeal and failed to undertake the statutory exercise of deciding the matter on merits. The Court also noted that the authority had granted multiple adjournments yet still could not bypass the duty to pass a reasoned order. The matter was remanded for fresh disposal on merits with notice and opportunity of hearing, and the Court clarified that even in absence, a reasoned order must still be passed.
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT)
5. Suresh Kumar Pal v. Sweta Singh – (2026) taxcode.in 154 GSTAT
Departmental appeal dismissed at threshold where disputed penalty was below monetary limit and no exception was shown
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal at the admission stage, holding that the disputed amount was only penalty of Rs. 61,445, far below the prescribed Rs. 20 lakh threshold. It reiterated that maintainability must be tested before merits and that the Department must specifically establish an applicable exception to the monetary-limit policy. A bare assertion that the appeal was filed with Commissioner’s approval was held insufficient, as administrative authorisation cannot override the statutory litigation policy. The Tribunal also rejected the suggestion that Section 112 created an unconditional right to pursue every departmental appeal. Since no recognised exception was shown, the appeal was not admitted and the merits were left untouched.
6. Skantha Maatha Metals v. Sm Saraswathi – (2026) taxcode.in 165 GSTAT
Appeal involving statutory interpretation on Section 74 and limitation must be heard by Division Bench
The Tribunal held that the appeal involved a question of law within Section 109(8) because it required interpretation of statutory provisions, including whether a summary in Form GST DRC-01 could substitute the notice mandated by Section 74(1) and whether the appellate order was barred by limitation under Section 107(13). It accepted the appellant’s contention that the expression used in Section 109(8) is “any question of law” and not “substantial question of law.” On that basis, the matter could not be heard by a Single Member and had to be listed before a Division Bench. The Registry was directed to list the appeal for hearing on merits.
7. Hero Wiretex Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 164 GSTAT
Penalty-only GST appeal arising from pre-2025 proceedings not subject to newly inserted ten percent pre-deposit
The Tribunal held that the amended proviso to Section 112(8), which introduced a 10% pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals, could not be applied to proceedings initiated by a show cause notice issued before the amendment took effect. It treated the commencement of the lis as the relevant point and applied the principle that vested appellate rights are governed by the law in force when proceedings begin. Relying on precedent, it concluded that the appeal arising from the 2021 notice was not liable to the post-amendment pre-deposit requirement. The Registry objection was therefore set aside for admission purposes, and the appeal was admitted while keeping all merits open.
8. Ajit Kumar Minz v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd. – (2026) taxcode.in 156 GSTAT
Refund claims filed after amended Rule 89(5) benefit from substituted formula despite earlier tax periods
The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s order allowing refund claims linked to inverted duty structure. It held that the substituted formula under Rule 89(5), introduced by Notification No. 14/2022, applied to refund applications filed after 05.07.2022, even if the accumulated credit related to earlier periods. The Tribunal also found no statutory bar against supplementary refund claims and held that procedural or portal difficulties could not defeat substantive refund entitlement. Relying on earlier decisions and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Department’s challenge in similar litigation, it declined to interfere with the appellate order and rejected all five departmental appeals.
9. Ajit Kumar Minz v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd. – (2026) taxcode.in 161 GSTAT
Supplementary refund claims allowed where amended Rule 89(5) applied and no bar existed in statute or rules
The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s order allowing five refund claims for inverted duty structure. It held that refund applications filed after 05.07.2022 were governed by the substituted Rule 89(5), regardless of the period in which credit had accumulated. It further found that supplementary refund claims for the same periods were not barred by any specific provision in the GST law and could not be rejected merely because earlier claims had been filed. Circular-based objections and procedural difficulties on the portal were treated as insufficient to deny substantive refund relief. The departmental appeals were therefore rejected in full.
10. Sri Kumaran Steels v. Raja M Mani Assistant Commissioner State Taxes – (2026) taxcode.in 166 GSTAT
Summary in Form DRC-01 cannot replace Section 74 notice; appeal therefore involves question of law
The Tribunal held that the appeal involved a question of law because it required interpretation of whether a summary in Form GST DRC-01 issued under Rule 142 could substitute the independent notice required under Section 74(1). It reiterated that Section 109(8) turns on whether any question of law arises, not only a substantial question of law, and that statutory interpretation is enough to require a Division Bench. The respondent’s objection that the dispute was purely factual was rejected. The matter was therefore directed to be heard by one Judicial Member and one Technical Member, with the appeal listed for hearing on merits.
11. Boilla Venkataramana Reddy v. Shivenari Canteen Services – (2026) taxcode.in 163 GSTAT
Outsourced caterer supplying only food to hospital in-patients not entitled to composite-supply exemption
The Tribunal held that the respondent, as an outsourced caterer supplying only food to MGM Hospital, could not claim the benefit of composite supply of healthcare services. It found that the Board circular on food for in-patients applied to the healthcare service provider’s own supply, not to an independent caterer under contract. While setting aside the First Appellate Authority’s view, the Tribunal also held that the ingredients for invoking Section 74 were not established and deemed the notice to be one under Section 73(1). It further directed recomputation of tax on a cum-tax basis under Rule 35, since no tax had been separately collected in the invoices for the relevant period.
12. Jitendra Kumar Assistant Commissioner v. Gatimaan Brickfield – (2026) taxcode.in 167 GSTAT
Section 130 confiscation proceedings unsustainable for unaccounted bricks; tax must be determined under Sections 73 and 74
The Tribunal dismissed all four departmental appeals arising from brick-field inspections where excess or unaccounted bricks and coal were found. It held that, on a conjoint reading of Section 35(6) and the governing provisions, the proper course for unaccounted goods is determination of tax under Sections 73 or 74, not confiscation proceedings under Section 130. The Tribunal relied on High Court rulings cited by the first appellate authority and agreed that the original confiscation-based penalty and fine orders could not stand. Since the first appellate authority had already set aside those orders, the revenue’s second appeals confined to the fine component were held to be without merit.
