LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 01.07.2026
🔥📛 Consolidated SCN spanning multiple financial years under Tripura HC scanner; Stays recovery
➡️ Tripura High Court has granted an interim stay on further proceedings arising from a consolidated Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act for FYs 2020-21 to 2023-24.
➡️ The assessee challenged the consolidated notice on the ground that Section 73 requires separate proceedings for each financial year, since GST limitation periods are linked to the annual return of the relevant year.
➡️ Relying on the Kerala High Court Division Bench ruling in Lakshmi Mobile Accessories, the assessee argued that clubbing multiple financial years in one notice cannot be used to bypass or dilute the separate statutory limitation applicable to each year.
➡️ The assessee further contended that the limitation period for issuing notices and passing adjudication orders for FYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 had already expired, and those years could not be revived merely by combining them with later years.
➡️ Finding prima facie merit in the assessee’s challenge, the High Court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the notice, directed the Revenue to file a counter affidavit, and listed the matter for further hearing on August 24, 2026.
✔️ Tripura HC – Balaji Concast vs Union of India & Ors [WP(C) No. 382/2026]
🔥📛 Madras HC relegates Assessee to appeal despite finding prima facie merit in TP-adjustments and import-interest valuation
➡️ The Madras High Court refused to entertain a writ petition against a GST assessment order involving transfer pricing-based import price adjustments and interest on delayed payment to an overseas supplier, holding that both issues required examination of disputed facts, contractual terms, and statutory provisions.
➡️ The assessee argued that post-import transfer pricing adjustments between related parties were made only to comply with transfer pricing regulations and did not automatically amount to additional consideration for supply, especially in light of CBIC Circular No. 251/08/2025-GST dated September 12, 2025.
➡️ The assessee further contended that such adjustments could be treated as consideration only where they were linked to specific obligations of the distributor, such as advertising, marketing, customization, or similar activities, whereas the Revenue treated the additional amount recovered pursuant to the adjustment as taxable consideration.
➡️ On the interest issue, the assessee submitted that interest paid for delayed payment to the foreign supplier formed part of import valuation, if at all, and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of Customs authorities under the Customs Tariff Act and IGST Act, not GST authorities applying Section 15 of the CGST Act.
➡️ Since the assessment order contained detailed findings after considering the distribution agreement, CBIC Circular, Customs Tariff Act, CGST Act, and IGST Act, the High Court held that the issues should be decided by the statutory appellate authority on merits rather than in writ proceedings.
✔️ Madras HC – DECEUNINCK PROFILES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE [WP. 23266/2026]
🔥📛 GSTAT: Permits postal service on Revenue under Section-169 after portal-based service remains ineffective
➡️ GSTAT Delhi recognized that electronic service of appeal papers through the GSTAT portal and e-mail had failed due to technical issues, despite notice having been issued through those modes.
➡️ The Revenue stated that it could not access the appeal documents because portal credentials had not been shared, making portal-based service ineffective in practice.
➡️ The Tribunal also noted that repeated reminders to NIC seeking resolution of the access issue had not received any response, leaving the electronic service defect unresolved.
➡️ Accepting the assessee’s reliance on Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Tribunal permitted service on the Revenue through registered post or speed post, in addition to service through the portal and e-mail.
➡️ The appellant was directed to file duly stamped envelopes and the paper book within one week before the Assistant Registrar for service of notice, and the matter was listed for further hearing on July 7, 2026.
✔️ GSTAT Delhi – A & T Security Services Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors. [APL/1/DEL/2026]
🔥📛 HC: ITC accumulated under VAT-era not refundable after transition into GST; Re-credit in ECL permissible
➡️ Gujarat High Court held that transitional VAT credit carried forward into GST under Section 140 and credited to the Electronic Credit Ledger does not automatically become refundable under Section 54(3); such credit may be available for utilization, but refund is barred where the credit relates to the erstwhile tax regime.
➡️ The Court clarified the distinction between utilization and refund of input tax credit after GST migration: taxpayers may either claim refund under the old law in cash under Section 142(3), or transition the credit into GST for use against output tax liability, but cannot pursue both routes concurrently or interchangeably.
➡️ Once accumulated VAT credit is transitioned into the GST Electronic Credit Ledger, the second proviso to Section 142(3) applies, preventing refund of that credit; therefore, taxpayers who choose transition retain the right to use the credit but forfeit the right to claim it as a cash refund.
➡️ Although the Department’s rejection of refund of the transitional SGST credit was upheld, the Court granted partial relief by permitting the taxpayer to seek re-credit of the rejected amount in the Electronic Credit Ledger, directing the authority to examine the application and issue Form GST PMT-03 within 12 weeks if re-credit is found admissible.
➡️ The Court distinguished the Torrent Pharmaceuticals ruling, noting that it concerned refund in the context of zero-rated supplies, and relied on Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST to reaffirm that credit from the erstwhile regime, once transitioned into GST, cannot be refunded; in the present case, the taxpayer’s pre-GST accumulated VAT credit from an inverted tax structure was therefore not refundable but could be restored for utilization.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Dilip Babubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat & Anr. [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21685 of 2019]
🔥📛 SC: Disposes of writ challenging constitutional validity of Section 69; Follows Radhika Agarwal
➡️ The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, which empowers GST officers to arrest offenders, holding that the issue already stands settled by the three-Judge Bench ruling in Radhika Agarwal.
➡️ In Radhika Agarwal, the Supreme Court upheld both the constitutional validity of arrest provisions and the authority of officers under the Customs Act and GST Act to arrest persons for specified offences, confirming that such powers are legally enforceable when exercised within statutory limits.
➡️ As the validity of Section 69 had already been affirmed, the Supreme Court disposed of the present writ petition in terms of Radhika Agarwal and vacated any interim protection or interim order previously operating in the matter.
➡️ Relying on GST bail jurisprudence, including Radhika Agarwal, the Karnataka High Court in Viral Narendra Gosalia granted bail where the assessee was arrested without issuance of a notice of appearance under the BNSS, highlighting the importance of procedural safeguards before arrest.
➡️ In J Ramesh Chand, the Karnataka High Court held that forced tax collection during search, inspection, or seizure is contrary to CBIC instructions and the principles reiterated in Radhika Agarwal; it directed refund of ₹10 crore with 6% interest from the date of coercive collection until payment.
✔️ SC – Rakesh Kumar vs Union of India & Anr. [WRIT PETITION(S)(CRIMINAL) NO(S).439 OF 2024]
