LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 02.11.2026
🔥📛 HC: Verbal rejection cannot substitute statutory order on Tata Motors refund claim; Directs speaking order
➡️ The Gauhati High Court held in favour of Tata Motors Ltd. that the Revenue cannot keep a refund application under Section 50 of the Assam VAT Act, 2003 pending indefinitely by merely stating, verbally or through an affidavit, that the claim is time-barred.
➡️ The claim related to AY 2009-10 and arose from about ₹1.8 crore deducted at source by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority from payments due for supply of vehicles, which was deposited with the Revenue nearly two years later.
➡️ The assessee treated the deduction as excess payment of tax and applied for refund, but the application remained pending without any formal order, with the Revenue only verbally intimating that it was time-barred.
➡️ The Court held that such a communication cannot substitute a formal order on the application, because the assessee must be given an opportunity to challenge an adverse decision before the appropriate forum, which is impossible without a speaking order.
➡️ The Court directed the jurisdictional authority to dispose of the refund application within 45 days and granted the assessee liberty to approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved. The principle applies equally under GST, where refund claims must be decided by a reasoned order that is capable of appeal rather than by informal rejection.
✔️ Gauhati HC – Tata Motors Ltd. vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors. [WP(C)/8526/2018]
🔥📛 HC: Portal-only service of GST notice on cancelled registrant violates natural justice
➡️ The Allahabad High Court set aside an adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, holding that non-service of a physical Show Cause Notice on an assessee whose GST registration stood cancelled substantially violated the principles of natural justice.
➡️ The Court observed that, following cancellation of registration, the assessee is disabled from accessing the common portal and is relieved of the obligation to check it, so uploading the notice on the portal alone cannot be treated as effective service.
➡️ Relying on the Revenue’s own position in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd., the Court held that adjudication notices in such cases ought to be physically served in terms of Section 169(1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. GST Act.
➡️ The Court noted that the failure to serve physical notice may have prevented the assessee from filing objections, particularly when the right to a hearing is statutorily protected under Section 75(4), making the resulting order unsustainable.
➡️ The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, with directions to issue physical notice along with the Relied Upon Documents within ten days and to grant the assessee two weeks thereafter to file a written reply. The Supreme Court has since issued notice in the assessee’s SLP and stayed these remand directions, so the final position on service on cancelled registrants awaits its decision.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Anupam Industries Versus State Of Up & Anr. [WRIT TAX No. – 2778 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Pending appeal, no recovery of disputed interest where entire tax is paid and pre-deposit requirements u/s 112(8) satisfied
➡️ The Bombay High Court allowed writ petitions challenging recovery proceedings initiated under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST/MGST Act for alleged interest dues, where the entire tax amount had been deposited and the assessee’s appeals were pending before the GST Appellate Tribunal, holding that the recovery was in the teeth of Section 112(9).
➡️ The Revenue had raised interest demands under Section 50 alleging delayed payment of tax on construction, maintenance and repair of highways and internal roads for FYs 2023-24 to 2025-26. The demands were confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the First Appellate Authority, and the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, contending that the payments were made amid banking restrictions, recorded objections, financial constraints and pending project disputes, without accepting the liability.
➡️ Despite the pending appeals, the Revenue issued recovery intimations and notices to the assessee’s banks under Section 79(1)(c), directing remittance of about ₹22.12 crore to the Government.
➡️ Interpreting Sections 107(6), 107(7), 112(8) and 112(9), the Court held that there is no requirement of pre-deposit of interest when the entire amount of tax has been paid, and that the percentage-based pre-deposit under Section 112(8)(b) does not extend to disputed interest alone. The First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal had both accepted the appeals without insisting on any pre-deposit of interest.
➡️ The Court held the recovery proceedings contrary to Section 112(9), granted relief against the recovery intimations and bank notices, and left the merits of the interest demands, including the applicable tax base, payment dates and computation, open for adjudication before the Tribunal. Once the tax is paid and an appeal is filed, the statutory stay protects the taxpayer against coercive recovery of the disputed interest.
✔️ Bombay HC – Roadway Solutions India Infra. Ltd vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors [WRIT PETITION NO. 14038 OF 2026]
🔥📛 GSTAT: Post-July 18, 2022 filing cannot bar pre-existing inverted-duty ITC refund; Circular cannot curtail accrued entitlement
➡️ GSTAT Hyderabad allowed the assessee’s appeal against rejection of an inverted-duty refund of ITC accumulated on the manufacture of edible oils during May 2020 to March 2021, holding that a refund application filed after July 18, 2022 cannot disentitle refund of pre-existing ITC by retrospectively extending the restriction under Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) through CBIC Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST.
➡️ The assessee manufactures oils under HSN 15079010, 15119010 and 15159040 and procures inputs taxed at rates higher than its outward supplies, resulting in accumulated ITC. It first applied for refund on June 18, 2022, withdrew that application and filed afresh on March 25, 2023, which the original authority rejected on the ground that the application was filed after July 18, 2022.
➡️ Relying primarily on the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Gemini Edibles and Fats India, against which the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP, and on Patanjali Foods (Gujarat HC), Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills (Rajasthan HC), Vaibhav Edible (Allahabad HC) and Adani Wilmar (Calcutta HC), the Tribunal held that the notification restricts inverted-duty refunds for specified goods under Chapters 15 and 27 only prospectively from July 18, 2022, and the circular cannot extend it to ITC accumulated before that date.
➡️ The Tribunal stressed that ITC is a right that accrues on the date the taxed goods or services are bought in the course or furtherance of business, and such a right cannot be curtailed by giving an executive circular retrospective effect without statutory backing. The circular stood struck down in Gemini Edibles to the extent it applied the restriction to all refund applications filed on or after July 18, 2022.
➡️ Noting that the application of March 25, 2023 was within the two-year period under Section 54(3) and that the notification itself contains no filing-date cut-off, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the original and first appellate authorities and directed the original authority to decide the refund claim afresh in accordance with law and the judicial precedents. Edible oil manufacturers with ITC accumulated before July 18, 2022 can pursue such refunds irrespective of the filing date.
✔️ GSTAT Hyderabad – Kedia Agro vs Principal Commissioner Hyderabad GST Commissionerate [APL/194/HYD/2026]
🔥📛 AAR: Printing pre- and post-exam-related items for Educational Institutions is “supply of services”; Exempt
➡️ The Tamil Nadu AAR held that printing and supply of examination-related items to educational institutions is a supply of services, and that printing of pre-examination items such as hall tickets, question papers, OMR sheets and answer booklets for the conduct of examinations is exempt under Serial No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
➡️ The AAR further ruled that printing of post-examination items such as mark sheets, degree certificates, grade sheets, rank sheets, rank cards and certificates, after scanning the OMR sheets and processing the data for educational institutions in relation to the conduct of examinations, is likewise exempt under the same entry.
➡️ The applicant, Associated Printers (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., had been charging GST at 18% on these services to various universities. The AAR noted that the design, logo, barcode and all content are supplied by the institution, the applicant merely prints the content and returns it, and ownership of the content remains with the institution throughout, making the activity a bundled supply of goods and services occurring concurrently, that is, a composite supply.
➡️ Since the usage rights in the content lie with the institutions while only the physical inputs belong to the applicant, the AAR held that printing is the principal supply, so the entire composite supply is classified as a service under Heading 9989 of the scheme of classification of services rather than as a supply of printed goods.
➡️ As the printing is a service rendered to educational institutions, the AAR concluded that the exemption is available, observing that processing and scanning of results and printing of mark sheets and certificates are essential to completing a qualification recognised by law. Printers serving educational institutions should revisit their tax position on such supplies and the related ITC treatment.
✔️ Tamil Nadu AAR – In the matter of Associated Printers (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. [Advance Ruling No. 60/ARA/2026]
🔥📛 GSTAT: Principal Bench consolidates 450 appeals for common adjudication on taxability of mining royalty
➡️ The GSTAT Principal Bench allowed transfer applications filed by ONGC Ltd. and directed transfer of 450 appeals pending before various State Benches to the Principal Bench for consolidated adjudication on whether GST is leviable on royalty paid to the Central and State Governments under mining leases, and on refund of the amounts paid under protest.
➡️ ONGC invoked Sections 109(5) and 109(6) of the CGST Act read with the third proviso to Section 109(5), contending that all the appeals involve an identical question of law that warrants common adjudication by a single forum.
➡️ The State Commissionerates of Assam, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tripura and Tamil Nadu expressed no objection to the transfer, while Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh remained unrepresented despite sufficient service of summons, and the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them.
➡️ Observing that all 450 appeals involve an identical question of law, the Tribunal held that under the Government notification issued under the third proviso to Section 109(5), the Principal Bench has exclusive jurisdiction to decide such matters, and State Benches cannot adjudicate them.
➡️ The Tribunal directed transfer of all 450 appeals to the Principal Bench for listing before the Bench designated by the President, GSTAT. Mining lessees and oil and gas companies with pending royalty disputes can expect a single, authoritative Tribunal ruling and may seek tagging of their own appeals with this batch.
✔️ GSTAT Principal Bench – ONGC Ltd v. Commissioner [TRNS.OF.APPL/9/PB/2026]
🔥📛 HC: Non-issuance of DRC-04 ‘fatal’; Directs refund where surprise inspection was conducted during Assessee’s family wedding
➡️ The Madras High Court directed the Revenue to refund the amounts deposited under IGST, CGST and SGST during a surprise inspection conducted at the time of the assessee’s family wedding, noting that the Revenue had never issued Form GST DRC-04 acknowledging acceptance of the payment and issued Form DRC-01 only later to comply with natural justice.
➡️ Following the Calcutta High Court’s decision in ATR Malleable Casting, the Court treated the non-issuance of Form GST DRC-04 as fatal to the Revenue’s claim that the payment was a voluntary, accepted deposit of tax.
➡️ The Court took note that the inspection coincided with the family wedding, when the assessee and his entire family were expected to be occupied with wedding activities, and that the assessee had objected to the Revenue collecting the demand at the inspection spot itself.
➡️ The refund claim was filed after a delay of 17 days, but the Court held that the delay cannot by itself be a ground to reject the claim, observing that customary wedding formalities may take weeks to complete and that the customs and procedures surrounding a wedding or a death cannot be brushed aside mechanically. The Revenue’s plea of unexplained delay was rejected at the outset.
➡️ The writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside and the Revenue was directed to refund the amounts within eight weeks. Amounts collected during inspections under objection and without the statutory acknowledgment in DRC-04 do not acquire the character of voluntary tax payment and are refundable.
✔️ Madras HC – Aruna Mills vs The State Tax Officer & Anr. [WP Nos.30908, 31022, 31026 & 31597 of 2024 and WMP Nos. 33490, 33645, 33635 & 34347 of 2024]
🔥📛 HC: Retrospective cancellation of registration does not bar audit u/s 65 for ‘specified period’
➡️ The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an audit notice issued under Section 65 of the CGST Act for July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2021, holding that the subsequent retrospective cancellation of the assessee’s GST registration with effect from December 31, 2019 does not take away the Department’s power to audit the period covered by the registration.
➡️ The assessee had applied for cancellation on January 11, 2020 citing closure of business, and the application was pending when the audit notice was issued. It later obtained a writ order directing processing of the cancellation, with returns filed thereafter to be treated as void, but did not disclose the pending audit notice in those proceedings despite having already replied to it.
➡️ The assessee argued that Section 65 permits audit only of a ‘registered person’ and that retrospective cancellation rendered the notice without jurisdiction, at least for the period after December 31, 2019, relying on the Madras High Court’s judgment in Tvl. Raja Stores and paragraph 7.1.2 of the Model All India GST Audit Manual, 2023.
➡️ Rejecting the contention, the Court held that ‘registered person’ in Section 65 must be read in light of the function of an audit under Section 2(13), which concerns the records, returns and documents furnished under GST to verify past compliance and not the taxpayer’s present status on the portal. Cancellation determines the legal effectiveness of registration from a specified date but does not erase the historical fact that registration existed and acts were undertaken under it, so ‘registered person for such period’ permits scrutiny of those acts. Section 29(3) does not independently define the scope of audit, and the Court followed the Bombay High Court’s contextual approach in L.J. Victoria Properties over Tvl. Raja Stores.
➡️ The Court further held that the assessee’s failure to disclose the audit notice in the earlier writ proceedings disentitled it to discretionary relief, notwithstanding the Department’s delay in processing the cancellation application. The audit notice was upheld, the petition dismissed and the interim protection vacated, confirming that cancellation of registration does not shield past periods from audit.
✔️ Delhi HC – Oyster Steel and Iron Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner, Circle VII, Group 61, Central Goods and Services Tax Audit-I [W.P.(C) 15619/2023]
🔥📛 HC: Detailed SCN cannot be faulted for lack of particulars to invoke writ jurisdiction; Relegates Assessee to appellate remedy
➡️ The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with two Orders-in-Original raising demands of about ₹2.99 crore in proceedings alleging availment and passing on of ineligible ITC through invoices unsupported by genuine supplies, and relegated the assessee to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107.
➡️ The Court held that the detailed Show Cause Notice in the first matter, which ran to nearly 80 pages and set out the alleged transactions and the modus operandi involving multiple firms, could not be faulted for lack of particulars so as to justify writ interference.
➡️ Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. Infra Projects Ltd., the Court observed that while the mere use of expressions such as ‘fraud’, ‘wilful misstatement’ or ‘suppression of facts’ cannot sustain proceedings under Section 74 without disclosure of the underlying factual particulars, the applicability of that principle must be examined with reference to the contents of the notice and the allegations in each case.
➡️ The objection in the second matter that penalty was imposed although the SCN had not proposed it was left to be examined by the appellate authority. The Court clarified that relegating the assessee to appeal does not amount to accepting the Revenue’s position on the legality of the penalty, and all grounds were left open without any final opinion on the demands, the applicability of Section 74 or the penalty.
➡️ The Court directed that any application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking exclusion of the period during which the writ petitions remained pending be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. G.R. Infra Projects is therefore not a blanket ground for writ relief, and where the SCN is detailed the appeal is the appropriate route.
✔️ Delhi HC – Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders Vs Additional Commissioner, CGST & Anr. [W.P.(C) 50/2026]
