LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 22.05.2026
🔥📛 SC to examine Alstom’s challenge to HC judgment denying partial ITC refund post-amalgamation
➡️ The Supreme Court has issued notice in the SLPs filed by Alstom Transport India Limited against the Gujarat High Court ruling that denied refund of unutilized ITC retained by the erstwhile amalgamating entity, with the matter listed after the Court vacation on August 3, 2026.
➡️ The dispute arose from an NCLT-approved amalgamation where erstwhile Alstom Rail Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. transferred only part of its accumulated ITC to the transferee company through FORM GST ITC-02, while retaining the balance ITC to claim refund under Section 54(3) relating to zero-rated export supplies made prior to amalgamation.
➡️ The Gujarat High Court held that the statutory GST framework governing amalgamation, registration, cancellation, and transfer of ITC required complete and compliant transfer of eligible credit from the transferor to the transferee, and that partial transfer coupled with separate refund retention was not legally sustainable.
➡️ The High Court further observed that the transferee entity could not independently claim refund of ITC connected with exports undertaken by the transferor entity unless the credit had been validly and fully transferred in accordance with GST law, thereby upholding reversal of earlier refund sanction orders.
➡️ The ruling also highlighted procedural non-compliance, including retrospective GST registration obtained by the transferee and delayed cancellation of the transferor’s registration, indicating that strict adherence to statutory requirements in restructuring transactions is critical for preserving ITC continuity and refund eligibility under GST.
✔️ SC – Alstom Transport India Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise (Appeals) & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16124-16130/2026]
🔥📛 Tripura HC to examine if portal upload without physical service proof would constitute ‘valid service’
➡️ The Tripura High Court admitted a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order and subsequent recovery proceedings, where the assessee contended that the order was never validly served and was discovered only later through information obtained under the RTI Act.
➡️ Referring to the Madras High Court ruling in Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd., the Bench reiterated that mere uploading of an order on the GST portal does not by itself constitute sufficient service when other statutory modes of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act are available.
➡️ The Court observed that the department is expected to adopt additional recognized modes of service under Section 169 to ensure effective communication of adjudication orders, particularly when recovery consequences are involved, and not rely solely on portal uploading.
➡️ On the Revenue’s contention that the order had been dispatched through Speed Post, the Court noted that Section 169(1)(b) specifically requires dispatch through Speed Post with “Acknowledgement Due”; while dispatch records and postal receipts were produced, no acknowledgment card or proof of delivery to the assessee or its authorized representative was furnished.
➡️ Taking note of the assessee’s submission that the Postal Department itself could not confirm delivery of the article, the High Court prima facie held that there was non-compliance with Section 169(1)(b) of the CGST Act, continued the interim protection against recovery proceedings, and directed that the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
✔️ Tripura HC – Nikhil Debnath v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No. 708 of 2025]
🔥📛 Bombay HC stays recovery of Section 122(1A) penalty imposed on director for company’s GST liability
➡️ The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) granted interim protection to a company director against recovery of penalty exceeding Rs.16 crores imposed under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, while the underlying tax, interest, and penalty demand under Section 74 had already been confirmed against the company as the registered taxable person.
➡️ The director argued that he was only acting in his capacity as a director and that the alleged GST short-payment pertained exclusively to the company; therefore, imposition of an identical penalty amount on him personally was mechanical and lacked independent legal justification.
➡️ Relying on the Bombay High Court ruling in Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari, later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the assessee contended that Section 122(1A) cannot automatically be invoked against directors or employees unless specific statutory conditions establishing their direct involvement and benefit from the alleged transactions are clearly satisfied.
➡️ The case reiterates the judicial principle that vicarious liability cannot be inferred under Sections 122 and 137 of the CGST Act merely because a person holds the position of director or employee, especially where the company itself is the taxable entity against whom proceedings under Section 74 have been initiated.
➡️ Taking note of the Supreme Court’s approval of the earlier Bombay High Court view, the High Court restrained the Revenue from initiating coercive recovery proceedings against the director and directed that no recovery action for the penalty amount shall be taken until the respondents file their reply in the matter.
✔️ Bombay HC – Girish Kumar Raval v. Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 4045 OF 2026]
🔥📛 Bombay HC grants ad-interim relief in GSTR-1 rectification dispute; Declines Revenue’s plea for 10% pre-deposit
➡️ Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a writ petition challenging denial of rectification of GST returns, after observing prima facie that the dispute was squarely covered by the Division Bench ruling in Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. relating to correction of bona fide errors in GST filings.
➡️ The Assessee argued that the mismatch and consequent demand arose solely due to bona fide and inadvertent mistakes in GST returns, and that coercive recovery should not be pursued where there was no intention to evade tax and the issue already stood settled through consistent judicial precedents following the Star Engineers ruling.
➡️ The Revenue opposed interim protection on the ground that the impugned orders were appealable before the GST Tribunal and that, pending constitution of the Tribunal, statutory notifications and circulars contemplated payment of an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to secure protection from coercive recovery proceedings.
➡️ Rejecting the Revenue’s objection at the interim stage, the High Court observed that where the taxpayer’s conduct reflected bona fide and inadvertent error, insistence on deposit of an additional 10% amount was not justified merely because appellate remedies were otherwise available under the GST framework.
➡️ The ruling reinforces the judicial approach that genuine clerical or inadvertent GST return errors, particularly those without revenue loss implications, deserve equitable relief and protection from coercive recovery, while also affirming the continued precedential value of the Star Engineers decision for rectification-related GST disputes.
✔️ Bombay HC – Pagariya Auto Private Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary and Others [WRIT PETITION NO. 4779 OF 2026]
🔥📛 SC stays Section-74 proceedings, flags jurisdiction, natural justice concerns despite alternate remedy; Issues notice
➡️ The Supreme Court has issued notice in Tata Steel Limited’s SLP challenging the Jharkhand High Court judgment, which had refused to entertain a writ petition against an Order-in-Original passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act on the ground of availability of an effective statutory appellate remedy.
➡️ Tata Steel argued before the Supreme Court that an identical legal issue concerning the maintainability of writ petitions despite alternate remedy under Section 74 of the CGST Act is already pending consideration before the Apex Court in another matter, warranting similar treatment in the present case.
➡️ The Jharkhand High Court had reaffirmed the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked in fiscal matters where a statutory appellate mechanism exists, unless exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or constitutional issues are clearly established.
➡️ While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court emphasized that appellate remedies created under tax statutes cannot be bypassed in the ordinary course, and clarified that the High Court does not function as an appellate authority to re-examine factual or legal errors where the statute itself provides a complete adjudicatory framework.
➡️ Considering the pendency of a similar matter, the Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings in Tata Steel’s case until the next hearing, while making the interim protection conditional upon the Court being satisfied that the issues involved are substantially similar to those arising in SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025.
✔️ SC – Tata Steel Limited vs Union of India through The Secretary Ministry of Finance & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16859/2026]
🔥📛 Calcutta HC to examine registration cancellation legality sans mandatory suspension procedure/portal intimation
➡️ The Calcutta High Court considered a challenge to cancellation of GST registration allegedly arising from multiple GST registrations being linked to a single bank account, which the Revenue claimed violated Rule 10A of the CGST Rules, 2017.
➡️ The assessee argued that although the Revenue relied on a clarification letter alleging multiple registrations against one bank account, no suspension notice in Form GST REG-31 was uploaded on the GST portal or communicated through the registered e-mail as required under Rule 21A(2A)(b) before initiating cancellation proceedings.
➡️ The assessee further contended that Section 146 of the CGST Act mandates electronic communication through the common portal, and therefore failure to issue or upload the statutory notice on the portal rendered the cancellation process procedurally defective.
➡️ It was also submitted that the allegations mentioned in the clarification letter were not reflected in the final cancellation order dated 16 June 2025, and that the assessee could not respond to the show-cause notice because he was in judicial custody during the relevant period.
➡️ The Revenue opposed the writ petition by asserting that intimation under Rule 21A had been duly sent to the assessee’s registered e-mail address in compliance with legal requirements; considering the competing submissions, the High Court granted time for filing affidavits and listed the matter for further hearing on 7 July 2026.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Joydeb Karmaka @ Jaydeb Karmakar versus Union of India and Ors. [WPA 10299 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Directs Appellate Authority to accept manual appeal where DRC-07 unavailable as per Rule 108(1) proviso
➡️ The Bombay High Court held that rejection of an appeal solely on the ground that it was not filed electronically under Rule 108(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was improper when the adjudication order in Form DRC-07 was not available on the GST portal.
➡️ The Court observed that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the proviso to Rule 108(1), which specifically permits manual filing of appeals where electronic filing is not possible due to non-availability of the impugned order on the common portal.
➡️ It was clarified that procedural requirements relating to electronic filing cannot defeat a taxpayer’s substantive right to appeal, particularly where the inability to comply arises from technical or portal-related deficiencies beyond the taxpayer’s control.
➡️ The High Court emphasized that authorities must interpret procedural provisions pragmatically and in a manner that facilitates access to statutory remedies, instead of adopting a rigid technical approach that results in denial of justice.
➡️ Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to reconsider the appeal in light of the proviso to Rule 108(1) and dispose of the matter expeditiously in accordance with law.
✔️ Bombay HC – Dinesh Dnyandeorao Pawade Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors [WRIT PETITION NO. 2561 OF 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Non-consideration of SCN reply and denial of personal hearing vitiates GST adjudication order
➡️ Orissa High Court set aside the Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 for FY 2021-22 and the subsequent rectification order under Section 161, holding that the adjudicating authority violated principles of natural justice by proceeding mechanically without properly considering the Assessee’s reply or granting the requested personal hearing.
➡️ The Court noted that the Assessee had filed a detailed reply in Form GST DRC-06 disputing GST liability under reverse charge on royalty, DMF, EMF, dead rent, and surface rent, specifically contending that mining operations had not commenced during the relevant period; however, the adjudication order incorrectly recorded that no reply had been filed and that the Assessee had failed to appear for hearing.
➡️ The High Court further observed that the rectification order passed suo motu under Section 161 merely acknowledged receipt of the Assessee’s reply but still failed to indicate that any personal hearing was granted, despite the Assessee expressly opting for such hearing in its written response.
➡️ Emphasising procedural fairness, the Court held that a reply to a show cause notice cannot be treated as an empty formality and that the adjudicating authority is duty-bound to independently examine the taxpayer’s explanation, consider supporting material, and provide reasoned findings while rejecting any defence raised by the noticee.
➡️ Rejecting the Revenue’s objection regarding availability of an alternate remedy, the Court held that the impugned orders suffered from ex facie arbitrariness and clear non-application of mind; accordingly, both orders were quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing and allowing the Assessee to produce evidence in support of its claims.
✔️ Orissa HC – Janardan Panda vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax, GST, Odisha and Others [WP(C) No. 11297 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: One-day timeline for document submission and hearing held illusory; Natural-justice mandates effective opportunity
➡️ The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order of approximately Rs. 26.72 crore against an assessee engaged in trading and export of mobile phones, holding that the adjudication process violated principles of natural justice due to the inadequate opportunity granted for compliance and hearing.
➡️ The dispute arose from special audit proceedings under Section 66 for FY 2021–22, where after issuance of a detailed SCN proposing demand exceeding Rs. 58 crore, the Revenue issued a reminder on 27.12.2025 at 5:20 PM directing the assessee to furnish extensive additional documents by 29.12.2025 and attend personal hearing on 30.12.2025, effectively leaving less than one working day because of the intervening Sunday.
➡️ The assessee argued that despite filing a detailed reply, the timeline granted for producing voluminous documents, including certified bank statements and records running into several hundred pages, was wholly unrealistic and rendered the statutory opportunity under Sections 66(4), 75(4), and 75(5) illusory; it was also contended that the adjudication was conducted mechanically to meet limitation timelines and that parallel proceedings on identical issues were pending.
➡️ Accepting the assessee’s contention, the High Court held that the opportunity contemplated under Sections 66(4) and 75(4) of the CGST/DGST Act must be real, reasonable, and effective and cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality; the Court observed that the assessee’s request for a short adjournment of seven days was not properly considered despite the complexity and volume of information sought.
➡️ The High Court further held that the severely truncated timeline for furnishing documents and the passing of the adjudication order immediately after the hearing created a legitimate apprehension that the material placed by the assessee was not meaningfully considered, thereby vitiating the proceedings; consequently, the Court rejected the objection regarding alternate remedy, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with directions to provide proper opportunity while keeping all merits open.
✔️ Delhi HC – Avik Televentures Private Limited v. Office of the GST Officer [W.P.(C) 2339/2026]
🔥📛 HC: No purpose in keeping matter pending once GSTAT appointments made & procedure notified
➡️ The Allahabad High Court held that, now that the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has been constituted and Presidents and Members have been appointed to the Benches, no useful purpose would be served by continuing writ proceedings where an effective statutory appellate remedy is available under the CGST Act.
➡️ The Court noted that the writ petition had originally been entertained only because the appellate mechanism under Section 112 of the CGST Act was non-functional at the relevant time, preventing the assessee from filing an appeal against orders passed under Sections 107 and 108.
➡️ The High Court recorded that the Central Government has since notified the procedural and functional rules for GSTAT under Section 111 of the CGST Act and has also constituted the Tribunal and appointed its Members, thereby making the statutory appellate forum fully operational.
➡️ While relegating the assessee to the GSTAT remedy, the Court clarified that any additional amount deposited earlier pursuant to interim directions of the High Court, over and above the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6), would be treated as sufficient compliance with the pre-deposit requirement prescribed under Section 112(8).
➡️ Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the assessee to file an appeal before the GSTAT on or before June 30, 2026, and the Court directed that no objection regarding limitation should be raised and that the appeal should be decided on merits in accordance with law.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Sakshi Timber Merchant vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax Block I Shahjahanpur and Another [WRIT TAX No. – 131 of 2025]
