LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 20.04.2026
🔥📛 Bombay HC to examine scope of GST-levy on statutory charges collected by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
➡️ The Bombay High Court has issued notice and granted ad-interim protection to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board in its writ petition challenging the levy of GST on consent fees and analysis fees collected in the course of its regulatory functions.
➡️ The Petitioner argues that it operates as a statutory authority under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and that the fees collected are in exercise of sovereign regulatory powers, not in the nature of a “supply” under Section 7 read with Section 9 of the CGST/MGST Acts.
➡️ The Court observed that a prima facie case exists, particularly on the question of whether GST can be levied on statutory functions and whether the designated officer has jurisdiction to recover tax on such regulatory charges.
➡️ The High Court also relied on a similar interim relief granted in the University of Mumbai matter, where recovery proceedings under Section 79 were stayed in cases involving statutory or regulatory fees.
➡️ Pending further examination and subject to the Revenue filing its reply affidavit, the Court has directed that no coercive recovery action be taken against the Petitioner until the next hearing scheduled for May 6, 2026.
✔️ Bombay HC – Maharashtra Pollution Control Board Vs Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 10833 OF 2026]
🔥📛 Madras-HC admitting petition challenging Rs. 4500 cr demand over catalytic converters classification
➡️ The Madras High Court admitted a writ petition challenging multiple GST adjudication orders that reclassified catalysts and catalytic converters supplied to the automobile industry under Chapter 87 (motor vehicle parts) instead of the assessee’s declared classification under Headings 3815 and 8421, raising substantial tax demands exceeding ₹4,500 crore for FY 2019–20 to FY 2023.
➡️ As an interim measure, the Court directed the assessee to deposit approximately ₹241 crore within six weeks, balancing revenue interests against the pendency of the dispute, while not expressing any final view on the merits of the classification issue.
➡️ This is the second round of litigation; in the earlier instance, the High Court had remanded the matter for fresh consideration without pre-judging the issue, indicating continued judicial scrutiny over the correctness and consistency of the classification adopted by the tax authorities.
➡️ The assessee argued that its classification under Chapters 38 and 84 aligns with the Customs Tariff and is more specific, whereas the Revenue’s shifting stance—from “bumpers and parts thereof” to silencers/mufflers under Chapter 87—reflects inconsistency and weakens the basis of reclassification; it also challenged reliance on prior case law as misplaced.
➡️ The Court accepted the maintainability of the writ petition, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., recognizing that the dispute involves a pure question of law without disputed facts, and accordingly directed the Revenue to file counter affidavits, listing the matter for further hearing on June 10, 2026.
✔️ Madras HC – BASF Catalyst India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner [WP Nos. 12419, 12528, 12420, 12540 & 12531 of 2026]
🔥📛 SC issues notice against Gujarat HC judgment denying de-freezing of Buckbox’s bank account
➡️ The Gujarat High Court refused to de-freeze BuckBox’s bank account attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, where the account was used to route payout transactions for Digihub, an online gaming entity under investigation for alleged GST evasion and betting-related activities involving large-scale transactions.
➡️ BuckBox argued it was merely a technology service provider acting under a Dedicated Merchant Agreement, earning a small commission and lacking authority over fund processing, and contended that no proceedings under core CGST provisions were initiated against it, making provisional attachment unjustified.
➡️ The Court rejected this defense, emphasizing that intermediaries handling financial flows cannot rely solely on client undertakings; they are expected to conduct due diligence, including verifying the client’s business model, credentials, and legitimacy before onboarding.
➡️ Noting the scale of transactions (over ₹4.5 crore routed to more than 35,000 accounts) and BuckBox’s admission of inadequate verification, the Court held that the platform may have facilitated suspicious or illegal activities, justifying continued attachment during the ongoing investigation.
➡️ The Supreme Court has issued notice on BuckBox’s challenge to the High Court ruling and on its request for interim relief, but has not granted any immediate relief; the matter remains pending, signaling that proportionality of Section 83 attachments and intermediary liability will be key issues for future adjudication.
✔️ SC – Buckbox Infotech Pvt Ltd Vs. DGGI [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13233/2026]
🔥📛 HC: Covid limitation exclusion by Supreme Court must be applied to compute limitation u/s 107
➡️ The Gujarat High Court held that the limitation exclusion granted by the Supreme Court in suo motu proceedings applies to GST appellate timelines under Section 107, including both the normal limitation period and the condonable extended period.
➡️ The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled on 1 January 2022 on allegations of issuing invoices without actual supply, and the appeal filed on 6 June 2022 was rejected solely on the ground that it exceeded the statutory time limit of 120 days.
➡️ The assessee argued that as per the Supreme Court’s order dated 10 January 2022, the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 must be excluded while computing limitation, making 1 March 2022 the starting point for limitation calculation.
➡️ Rejecting the Revenue’s contention that delay beyond 120 days is non-condonable, the High Court clarified that the Supreme Court’s limitation extension applies universally to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, thereby shifting the computation window and preserving the assessee’s right to appeal within the extended framework.
➡️ The Court concluded that the appeal fell within the condonable period (90 to 120 days calculated from 1 March 2022) and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to consider condonation of delay on merits and decide the appeal in accordance with law.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Marvin Enterprise v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4869 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Relegates intermediary classification dispute to appellate tribunal; No binding effect of AAAR ruling
➡️ The Bombay High Court held that disputes regarding classification of services, nature of supply, and determination of place of supply must be examined in statutory appellate proceedings, rather than through a writ petition seeking independent adjudication.
➡️ The Court noted that parallel adjudication had already resulted in a demand order, which is under appeal, and emphasized that such appellate forums are better suited for a comprehensive review of both factual and legal issues, including export status.
➡️ It took into account that the Maharashtra AAAR had classified the assessee’s CRS marketing and promotion services as “intermediary services” forming part of a composite supply, thereby denying export benefits, but also observed that the AAAR itself refrained from deciding the place of supply due to jurisdictional limits.
➡️ The assessee’s arguments—that services provided to a foreign parent do not qualify as “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, that Section 13(8)(b) is unconstitutional, and that the supply should not be treated as intra-state—were not adjudicated on merits and were left open for proper consideration.
➡️ The High Court directed that all issues, including classification, export status, taxability, and constitutional validity, be raised before the appellate authority, which must decide the matter independently and without being influenced by the AAAR ruling.
✔️ Bombay HC – Sabre Travel Network (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 4570 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Remands ITC refund matter noting erroneous denial of additional evidence under Rule 112
➡️ The Bombay High Court set aside the appellate order that had rejected the refund of unutilized ITC on zero-rated supplies made to an SEZ developer under LUT, and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a proper review of the claim.
➡️ The Court held that the appellate authority erred in law by concluding that no additional evidence could be admitted at the appellate stage, as this view ignored the specific exceptions provided under Rule 112(1)(a) to (d).
➡️ It observed that the assessee’s case potentially fell within these exceptions, and therefore the rejection of additional documents—such as endorsed certificates—without examination was legally unsustainable.
➡️ The Court noted that the refund was initially denied due to the absence of endorsement by the specified officer under Rule 89(1), but such endorsed documents were later produced during the appellate proceedings and should have been duly considered.
➡️ It was further held that substantive claims cannot be dismissed on mere technical grounds without proper verification, and accordingly, the matter was remanded with directions to reconsider the refund claim after evaluating the additional evidence.
✔️ Bombay HC – High Performance Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Additional Commissioner (Appeals)-II & Anr. [WRIT PETITION NO. 3622 OF 2024]
🔥📛 HC: Quashes refund-rejection noting 7 days for responding to SCN against 15 days mandated by Rule 92
➡️ The Calcutta High Court set aside a refund rejection order where the assessee was given only 7 days to respond to a show cause notice in Form GST RFD-08, contrary to the mandatory 15-day period prescribed under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, thereby rendering the process legally flawed.
➡️ The Court emphasized that statutory timelines are not discretionary; any curtailment of the response period undermines the procedural safeguards built into the GST framework for adjudicating refund claims under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
➡️ It was noted that the assessee’s request for adjournment and extension of time was rejected without proper communication, further depriving the assessee of a fair opportunity to present its case.
➡️ The Court also found a violation of natural justice as the refund rejection order was passed without granting a personal hearing, which is explicitly required under the proviso to Rule 92(3), making the adjudication procedurally invalid.
Consequently, the High Court directed the refund authority to allow the assessee 15 days to file a reply, provide a personal hearing with at least 72 hours’ prior notice, and complete the proceedings within one month, reinforcing adherence to due process in GST adjudication.
✔️ Calcutta HC – CBF Component Private Limited & Anr Vs The Union of India & Ors. [W.P.A. 23847 of 2024]
🔥📛 HC: Declines to quash ITC blocking at SCN stage; Challenge to Section 16(2)(c) vires ‘premature’
➡️ The Bombay High Court declined to entertain writ petitions at the show cause notice or pre-intimation stage, holding such intervention to be premature since the GST framework provides a complete mechanism for adjudication and redressal.
➡️ The cases involved allegations of fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) claims based on invoices without actual supply of goods or services, including transactions with non-existent or unregistered suppliers, raising serious factual disputes requiring detailed examination.
➡️ Assessees challenged the blocking of ITC as arbitrary and questioned the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, arguing that it unfairly burdens recipients for supplier defaults; however, the Court refrained from ruling on these issues at this stage.
➡️ The Court emphasized that matters relating to ITC eligibility, factual verification, and legality of departmental actions must be assessed on a case-by-case basis during adjudication, while also noting that fraudulent ITC claims cannot be permitted despite their business impact.
➡️ Assessees were directed to file replies to show cause notices within two weeks, and authorities were instructed to complete adjudication after granting a fair hearing; in pre-SCN cases, departments must decide within eight weeks whether to proceed or drop the matter, with all legal contentions, including vires challenges, kept open for later stages.
✔️ Bombay HC – Karan Agencies Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 7404 OF 2021]
🔥📛 HC: Relegates Emirates to appellate remedy in exemption dispute on air cargo services
➡️ The Bombay High Court declined to examine the merits of a writ petition challenging a GST demand on air cargo services, holding that the dispute involves mixed questions of fact and law better suited for adjudication through the statutory appellate mechanism.
➡️ The assessee, Emirates, argued that services related to transportation of goods by aircraft from India to a foreign destination qualify for exemption under Notification No. 2/2018 (Entry 20A), and that the entire bundle of services constitutes a composite supply eligible for such exemption.
➡️ A key dispute centered on whether ancillary services linked to air cargo (such as handling or logistics support) can be taxed separately, with the assessee contending that segregating these elements defeats the intent of exemption when they are naturally bundled with the principal supply.
➡️ The Court noted that the case raises complex interpretational issues, including classification of composite supplies and reliance on judicial precedents, which require detailed factual verification and legal analysis—functions appropriately performed by the appellate authority rather than in writ jurisdiction.
➡️ The High Court permitted the assessee to file a statutory appeal within four weeks and directed that, if filed, it should be entertained without limitation objections, recognizing that the writ petition was pursued in good faith and ensuring that all legal contentions remain open for adjudication.
✔️ Bombay HC – Emirates Vs State of Maharashtra [WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 10258 OF 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Grants interim protection in challenge to GST-levy on leasehold rights; Tags with Swastik Processors
➡️ The Bombay High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the GST levy on the assignment of leasehold rights, focusing on whether such transfers qualify as a “supply” under Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule II(2) of the CGST Act.
➡️ The petitioner argued that the issue is already under consideration in a similar batch of cases (Swastik Processors), where interim relief against coercive recovery has been granted, making the present matter legally identical.
➡️ Recognizing the similarity of legal questions and the pendency of connected matters, the Court granted interim protection by restraining the tax authorities from taking coercive actions, including recovery based on the impugned orders or show cause notices.
➡️ The Court directed the Revenue to file its reply affidavit within six weeks and ordered that the present petition be tagged with the existing batch of similar cases for a consolidated and consistent adjudication.
➡️ The Court also allowed liberty to the parties to seek early mention if the Supreme Court delivers a ruling on the same issue, indicating that the final outcome may be influenced by higher judicial precedent.
✔️ Bombay HC – Suditi Industries Limited Vs. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 4054 OF 2026]
