GST Daily Updates
22 September 2026
—
GST Laws
High Courts
1. Pradeep Goyal and Anr. v. Union of India – (2026) taxcode.in 1534 HC
Bail granted in fake ITC prosecution where investigation was complete and no tampering risk was shown
The Court granted bail to the applicants facing prosecution under Section 132 of the CGST Act for alleged availing and passing on of fake input tax credit through bogus invoices. It noted that investigation had been completed, the complaint had been filed, and no material was shown to suggest tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or misuse of liberty. Criminal antecedents were treated as a relevant but not decisive factor, especially in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The Court also referred to the likely delay in trial, the Magistrate-triable nature of the case, and the maximum punishment of five years. Bail was allowed subject to standard conditions and liberty to seek cancellation on breach.
2. Supra Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner Circle 6 Central GST Audit 1 and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1497 HC
Writ dismissed as disputed GST audit and Section 74 findings were held fit for statutory appeal
The Court declined to interfere under Article 226 with a GST adjudication order passed after audit and show cause proceedings under Section 74. It held that the order was appealable under Section 107, and that the petitioner’s objections on invocation of Section 74, consolidated notices across years, audit objections, and alleged non-consideration of replies involved factual and merits-based disputes best left to the appellate authority. The Court found no patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest violation of natural justice. It also held that a consolidated notice covering multiple financial years was not, by itself, impermissible. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal and seek exclusion of writ-pendency time.
3. HD Associates v. Union of India and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1503 HC
Search and Section 74 notice upheld, but petitioner given liberty to reply before adjudicating authority
The Court refused to quash a search action and consequential show cause notice alleging suppression of taxable supplies and wrongful invocation of Sections 74 and 74A. It held that existence of FORM GST INS-01 showed authorization, and non-supply of reasons to believe did not by itself invalidate the search at the writ stage. The Court also rejected the argument that proceedings under Section 61 were a mandatory precondition and held that no statutory bar existed against a consolidated notice covering multiple financial years. Allegations regarding suppression, fraud, and quantification were found to be matters for adjudication. The petitioner was, however, granted 45 days to file its reply and raise all objections before the authority.
4. Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1518 HC
GST notice quashed where earlier income-tax finding and Section 12AA status supported Nil-rate exemption
The Court quashed a GST show cause notice issued under Section 74 after holding that the petitioners’ activities were already judicially recognized as charitable preservation of the environment. It noted that petitioner No. 1 held registration under Section 12AA and that an earlier High Court judgment, left undisturbed on merits, had accepted the charitable character of the activity. Reading that finding with Notification No. 12/2017, the Court held the services fell within the Nil-rate exemption for entities registered under Section 12AA carrying on charitable activities. It rejected reliance on Notification No. 11/2017 and found no fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to justify Section 74. The notice was therefore set aside.
5. GKEM International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs ICD PPG and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1498 HC
Customs demand saved by limitation scheme where Call Book stay stopped time from running against adjudication
The Court upheld an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand against importers who allegedly diverted duty-free raw material into the domestic market instead of fulfilling export obligations. The petitioners challenged the order mainly on limitation, arguing that adjudication had become time-barred under Sections 28(9) and 28(9A) of the Customs Act. The Court held that the relevant statutory clock restarted when the earlier writ petition, which had prompted deferment and Call Book transfer, ended on 08.12.2023. On that basis, the order dated 29.11.2024 was within time. It also held that the petitioners’ own conduct in seeking deferment disentitled them to discretionary writ relief, and relegated them to the statutory appellate remedy.
6. Kapil Raj Anand v. GST Officer Ward 109 Delhi – (2026) taxcode.in 1547 HC
Portal order and annexure read together; corrigendum sustained as rectification, with appeal remedy preserved
The Court held that a GST portal order stating proceedings were dropped could not be read in isolation from its annexure, which had separately confirmed demand on one issue. It treated the portal order and annexure as a composite adjudication containing an internal contradiction, not an unconditional dropping of all issues. The later corrigendum was upheld as a valid rectification under Section 161 because it corrected an apparent portal error without reopening the merits or enlarging the demand. The Court also directed furnishing of certified copies, uploading of FORM GST DRC-07 and DRC-08 if not already available, and granted the petitioner time to file an appeal under Section 107 without limitation objection. Recovery was kept in abeyance meanwhile.
7. Glen Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Deputy Director Directorate General of Gst Intelligence and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1540 HC
Proceedings based solely on omitted Rule 96(10) quashed after Supreme Court’s deletion ruling
The Court quashed a show cause notice and consequential orders issued under Section 74 on the ground that they were founded solely on Rule 96(10) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017 after that rule had been unconditionally omitted without any saving clause. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Goodluck India and the principle that an omitted provision ceases to exist in law unless saved, the Court held that pending proceedings could not survive on that basis. It also noticed the CBIC office memorandum instructing field formations not to continue such proceedings. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned notice and orders were set aside.
8. Shivamma v. Deputy Commissioner Kodagu District and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1565 HC
GST deduction from land acquisition compensation struck down as compulsory acquisition is not taxable supply
The Court held that GST could not be deducted from compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of land and structures for road widening. It reasoned that compulsory acquisition is an exercise of statutory power and not a supply of goods or services under the GST regime. Since immovable property is not goods and the petitioner had not supplied any service, the deduction had no legal basis. The respondents failed to point to any provision under the GST Act authorising levy on acquisition compensation or on the structure component of the award. The award notice was quashed to the extent of GST deduction, the deducted amount was ordered to be refunded with 15% interest, and costs were awarded to the petitioner.
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT)
9. Reliable Paints v. Pankaj Kumar Kharwar Assistant Commisioner – (2026) taxcode.in 173 GSTAT
Penalty sustained for suspect e-way bill and unproved breakdown story under Section 129
The Tribunal upheld penalty under Section 129 after finding that the second e-way bill was generated after expiry of the original bill and lacked a lawful basis. It held that Rule 138 permits extension of an e-way bill within eight hours of expiry, but not generation of a fresh bill on the same invoice after the original had lapsed. The appellant’s explanation of vehicle breakdown was found unproven: no reliable repair proof, driver statement, or convincing explanation for the movement from Orai to Kachora Ghat was produced. On a preponderance of probabilities, the Tribunal held that the second e-way bill was generated by fraud and deception with intent to evade tax, and dismissed the appeal.
10. Manoranjan Dash v. Commissionerate of CT GST – (2026) taxcode.in 172 GSTAT
No further GSTAT pre-deposit required where earlier deposit already covered surviving disputed tax
The Tribunal refused to recall its earlier order holding that no further pre-deposit was required for an appeal under Section 112(8)(b). It treated the issue as one of statutory workability and held that the pre-deposit under Sections 107(6) and 112(8) represents a portion of the disputed tax itself, not a separate liability. Since the assessee had already deposited the prescribed amount at the first appellate stage and the tax dispute had been substantially reduced by the Appellate Authority, insisting on another 10% of the surviving demand would be mechanical and anomalous. Relying on the Jharkhand High Court’s view in Ashirwad Food Industries, the Tribunal held that no interference with its earlier admission order was warranted.
11. Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) v. Devi 70mm – (2026) taxcode.in 171 GSTAT
Cinema theatre profiteered by retaining GST benefit after rate cut and not reducing ticket prices
The Tribunal held that the theatre had contravened Section 171 by not passing on the benefit of GST reduction on cinema tickets priced at Rs. 100 or less from 18% to 12%. It rejected the defence that ticket prices were controlled by government orders or that commercial factors justified retention of the same cum-tax price. The Tribunal found that the relevant price was the price charged to viewers, and the respondent had increased the base price instead of lowering the final ticket price after the rate cut. It also held that absence of challenge to the DGAP methodology and the respondent’s own admissions supported the profiteering finding. The DGAP’s computation of Rs. 81,722 plus GST and interest was accepted, with no penalty imposed.
12. Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) v. Shreeji Infra – (2026) taxcode.in 170 GSTAT
Post-GST housing project not liable to profiteering on alleged GST excess collection, DGAP report rejected
The Tribunal rejected the DGAP’s profiteering computation against a residential project that had commenced entirely in the post-GST regime. It held that, where there was no pre-GST booking or sale, the comparison of pre-GST and post-GST pricing or credit positions was not meaningful for Section 171 purposes. The DGAP’s attempt to treat alleged excess GST collection as profiteering was found legally unsustainable, because Section 171 concerns passing on actual benefit from rate reduction or ITC, not recovery of supposed overcharged tax. The Tribunal held that the project price inherently reflected post-GST conditions and accepted that the respondent had borne more tax than collected from buyers. The DGAP report was rejected and the matter sent for refund action.
13. Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) v. Maruti Developers – (2026) taxcode.in 169 GSTAT
Revised profiteering computation accepted after excluding reversed unutilised ITC from post-GST credit base
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP’s revised computation after excluding unutilised GST ITC that the respondent had later reversed through DRC-03. It held that the revised post-GST credit ratio and corresponding additional ITC benefit were correctly recalculated, reducing the profiteered amount from the earlier figure to Rs. 2,34,671 plus GST of Rs. 28,161. The respondent accepted the revised working and furnished a flat-wise reconciliation, which the Tribunal took on record. It directed that the benefit be passed on to eligible homebuyers with 18% interest under Rule 133(3)(b). The Tribunal also held that no penalty under Section 171(3A) could be imposed, since that provision was not in force during the investigation period.
14. Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) v. Alankar Cinema – (2026) taxcode.in 168 GSTAT
Cinema theatre held liable for not passing GST rate-cut benefit, despite government price controls
The Tribunal held that the cinema operator had failed to pass on the benefit of GST reduction from 18% to 12% on admission tickets priced at Rs. 100 or less. It rejected the defence based on government-fixed ticket ceilings and held that such orders only prescribed the maximum price, leaving the theatre free to reduce prices to pass on the tax benefit. The respondent’s admission that it kept ticket prices unchanged while increasing the base price was treated as evidence of profiteering. The Tribunal also rejected arguments based on electricity and maintenance components, holding that Section 171 focuses on commensurate reduction in price, not cost bifurcation. The DGAP reports were accepted, the profiteered amount was quantified at Rs. 10,19,280 with interest, and no penalty was levied.
