GST Daily Updates
30 September 2026
—
GST Laws
High Courts
1. Shree Karni Electrovision v. Union of India and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1584 HC
Input tax credit denied where supplier failed to pay tax; insolvency of supplier did not override statutory condition
The Rajasthan High Court held that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST and RGST framework makes actual payment of tax to the Government a mandatory condition for Input Tax Credit, subject to Section 41. The petitioner could not insist on ITC merely because the supplier later entered insolvency proceedings or because tax was allegedly already reflected in the transaction. The Court accepted the view that a purchaser must verify supplier compliance before availing credit, and that recovery is permissible where credit was taken without such payment. Reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ghanashyam Mishra did not help, as it dealt with resolution-plan consequences and not ITC entitlement. The writ petition was dismissed and the recovery order was left undisturbed.
2. Kor Chems v. Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise and Anr. – (2026) taxcode.in 1570 HC
Leasehold rights in GIDC plot not taxable; blocked-credit and fraud allegations failed on settled legal position
The Gujarat High Court held that acquisition of leasehold rights in a GIDC industrial plot was not taxable GST supply on the facts before it, following its earlier view on assignment of leasehold rights. Once the transaction itself was held outside the charging provisions, the Court found no basis to treat the related ITC as blocked under Section 17(5)(d), which applies to construction-related inward supplies and not to a case where no construction activity was undertaken. The Court also rejected invocation of Section 74(1), finding no foundation for fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement. It quashed the demand, penalty-related orders and appellate order, and directed refund of the tax and interest earlier paid through DRC-03.
3. Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner State Tax Commercial Taxes Department and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1567 HC
Unsigned GST notice and order held non est; portal upload could not replace mandatory authentication
The Rajasthan High Court held that a show cause notice and Order-in-Original under GST must be authenticated in the manner required by Rule 26(3), and that mere upload on the portal is not enough. Since the impugned notice and order carried neither digital signatures nor physical signatures, they were treated as having no legal existence. The Court rejected the argument that officer login, ARN generation or portal reflection amounted to deemed authentication, drawing a clear distinction between access to the system and signature on the document. It also held that Section 160 could not cure this jurisdictional defect and that the alternative remedy objection did not apply where the foundational order itself was void. All consequential recovery proceedings were set aside.
4. Sanskriti Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence Dzu and Ors. – (2026) taxcode.in 1550 HC
Central GST proceedings not barred merely due to State action; appeal remedy and consolidated notice upheld
The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with an Order-in-Original challenged through writ jurisdiction, holding that an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 107 was available. On the petitioner’s Section 6(2)(b) objection, the Court held that the bar applies only when both proceedings concern the same subject matter, not merely because they involve the same assessee, overlapping periods, or ITC-related allegations. It found that the State proceedings and the DGGI proceedings were based on different allegations and legal settings, even if some factual overlap existed. The Court also held that a consolidated show cause notice spanning multiple financial years was not without jurisdiction merely for that reason. The writ petition was dismissed, leaving all grounds open before the appellate authority.
