GST Daily Updates
28 September 2026
—
GST Laws
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT)
1. Cheema Local Carrier and Construction v. Commissioner State GST Commissioner – (2026) taxcode.in 184 GSTAT
First appellate orders lacking reasons and ignoring objections were set aside, with matters remanded for fresh adjudication
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority passed non-speaking orders without dealing with the appellants’ specific grounds, including objections on natural justice, show cause notice contents, relied-upon documents, and the Section 74 demands. It found that identical one-paragraph conclusions had been used in all three appeals, despite about 70 citations and multiple substantive issues. Holding that recording reasons is an essential part of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside both the appellate and original orders. Because the appellants also challenged the original adjudication process itself, including alleged denial of effective hearing and document supply, the matters were remanded to the original adjudicating authorities for fresh, reasoned adjudication after granting proper opportunity.
2. Cheema Bricks & Traders v. Commissioner Commissioner State GST – (2026) taxcode.in 185 GSTAT
Cryptic first appellate orders ignoring all substantive grounds could not stand, so GST demands were remanded afresh
The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority failed to consider any of the seven grounds raised in appeal and simply confirmed the original orders with a brief conclusion. It held that such disposal, despite reliance on around 70 citations, was not a reasoned and speaking order and amounted to failure to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Emphasising that reasons are part of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders. Since the appellants also raised foundational objections to the original adjudication, including personal hearing and document-supply issues, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the original adjudicating authorities for fresh decision after supplying relied-upon documents and granting effective hearing.
3. Cheema Trading Company v. Commissioner State GST Commissioner – (2026) taxcode.in 186 GSTAT
Tribunal held mechanical appellate disposal and ex parte original adjudication warranted remand to assessing authorities
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority did not decide any of the appellants’ substantive grounds and passed identical, cryptic orders in all three matters. It found that the appellate orders were not reasoned or speaking orders, despite multiple objections on natural justice, Section 74, and the evidentiary basis of the demands. Applying the principle that a first appeal is a valuable right, the Tribunal held that remand was the proper course. Because the appellants also challenged the original adjudication on personal hearing and document-supply grounds, and the original orders were ex parte, the Tribunal remitted the matters to the original adjudicating authorities for fresh adjudication.
4. Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh – (2026) taxcode.in 187 GSTAT
Refund of unutilised ITC could be treated as erroneous refund, attracting Section 73 interest under the Act
The Tribunal upheld the interest demand on a refund of unutilised input tax credit, holding that a monetary refund under Section 54(3) can amount to an erroneous refund if it exceeds the entitlement under the statute and Rule 89(5). It rejected the argument that Section 73 could not be used unless the earlier refund order was first reversed through departmental appeal or revision, and held that Sections 73 and 50 together provide the statutory basis for interest. Since the appellant had already repaid the principal amount and raised no alternative computation, the dispute was confined to interest. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and sustained interest of Rs. 44,51,491.
5. Neeraj Shukla v. Jay Steels – (2026) taxcode.in 188 GSTAT
E-way bill requirement was not mandatory on the interception date, so detention and penalty were unsustainable
The Tribunal held that on 24.11.2017 the mandatory requirement of carrying an e-way bill under Rule 138 had not yet come into force for the relevant interstate movement. It noted that the compulsory nationwide regime was notified only later, and therefore the interception could not be sustained on that ground. The Tribunal also found no discrepancy in the goods, recorded that the buyer and seller were bona fide dealers, and observed that the Department had not alleged intent to evade tax when proceedings were initiated. In these circumstances, it held that detention, seizure and penalty under Section 129 were not sustainable and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
6. Anand Enterprises v. Ruby Singh Additional Commissioner Grade-II Appeals State Tax and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 189 GSTAT
Expired e-way bill and wrong vehicle number justified presumption of tax evasion, sustaining penalty under GST law
The Tribunal upheld the penalty because the e-way bill had expired and the vehicle number in Part B did not match the vehicle actually carrying the goods. It held that Rule 138 requires correct vehicle details and that the CBIC circular for minor clerical mistakes could not apply to a complete substitution of vehicle number. Relying on the surrounding circumstances, including the delay in transit and failure to respond to the show cause notice, the Tribunal found a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax. Since the appellant failed to rebut that presumption, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal.
