LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 30.10.2026
🔥📛 SC stays Allahabad HC directions for physical service of notice on cancelled registrants
➡️ The Supreme Court issued notice in the assessee’s Special Leave Petition against the Allahabad High Court judgment and stayed paragraphs 7 and 8 of the High Court’s order dated May 27, 2026, which had directed physical service of a fresh notice along with Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) on a taxpayer whose GST registration stood cancelled.
➡️ The High Court had set aside an adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, holding that uploading the Show Cause Notice on the common portal after cancellation of registration substantially violated the principles of natural justice, since a cancelled registrant is disabled from accessing the portal and is relieved of the obligation to check it.
➡️ Relying on the Revenue’s own position in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd., the High Court held that adjudication notices in such cases ought to be physically served under Section 169(1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. GST Act, and observed that the failure to do so may have prevented the assessee from filing objections, particularly where the right to hearing is statutorily protected under Section 75(4).
➡️ The High Court had accordingly remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, directing issuance of physical notice with RUDs within ten days and granting the assessee two weeks thereafter to file a written reply. It is these remand directions that the assessee challenged before the Supreme Court.
➡️ After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the High Court order, issued notice returnable in eight weeks and listed the matter on January 27, 2027. The question of the mode of service on cancelled registrants, and the consequences of non-service of physical notice, is therefore now pending before the Supreme Court.
✔️ SC – ANUPAM INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF UP & ANR. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33337/2026]
🔥📛 Uttarakhand HC grants Ircon interim relief against Sec.74 SCN alleging wrongful ITC in works contract
➡️ The Uttarakhand High Court granted interim protection to Ircon International Limited, a Navratna PSU under the Ministry of Railways, against a Section 74 Show Cause Notice proposing to deny ITC under Section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act on works contract services, including construction services, performed by the assessee’s sub-contractors.
➡️ The Revenue alleged that the assessee had not itself supplied works contract services, as there was no transfer of property in goods in its outward supply as required under Section 2(119). According to the Revenue, on completion of construction by the sub-contractors the goods lose their identity and become part of immovable property, the transfer of property occurs at the sub-contractors’ level, and hence the ITC is inadmissible and recoverable with interest and penalty.
➡️ The assessee challenged the SCN on jurisdiction and merits, contending that Section 74 was invoked without disclosing any foundational facts of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, contrary to the Supreme Court’s mandate in G.R. Infra Projects and Tata Steel Limited, that these expressions were conspicuously absent from the SCN, and that the notice was vague as it did not refer to any contractual stipulation relevant to the transfer of property in goods.
➡️ On merits, the assessee argued that the underlying contracts establish that the transfer of property in goods is effected by the assessee itself, so works contract services are its output supply and the restriction under Section 17(5)(c) does not apply. The Court issued notice, directed the assessee to reply to the SCN within two weeks and permitted the Revenue to file its counter-affidavit within four weeks, clarifying that the authorities may proceed but no final order shall be passed until the next listing on November 16, 2026.
➡️ The order gains significance in light of CBIC Circular No. 258/04/2026-GST, which emphasises that invocation of Section 74 cannot rest on mechanical reproduction of the expressions ‘fraud’, ‘wilful misstatement’ or ‘suppression of facts’ and must be supported by specific justification and evidence of intent to evade tax, consistent with G.R. Infra Projects. Main contractors engaging sub-contractors should ensure their contracts clearly record the transfer of property in goods at their own level.
✔️ Uttarakhand HC – Ircon International Limited Versus Joint Commissioner and others [WPMB/840/2026]
🔥📛 SC: Issues notice in Revenue’s SLP against HC-judgment quashing GST-levy on Universities’ affiliation/NOC fees
➡️ The Supreme Court issued notice in the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition against the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment which set aside GST demands on affiliation fees and No Objection Certificate (NOC) fees received by public universities from their affiliated colleges, and tagged the matter with another pending SLP on the same issue.
➡️ Following the Bombay High Court’s decision in the Mumbai University case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that universities are duty bound to consider and grant or refuse affiliation and NOCs, that this is a statutory function mandated under UGC norms and not a business activity under Section 2(17), and that the activity therefore does not constitute a supply of service exigible to GST.
➡️ The Revenue’s case was that universities such as JNTU Kakinada, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Adi Kavi Nannayya University, Vikrama Simhapuri University and Krishna University rendered taxable services to affiliated colleges, that affiliation and NOC services do not fall within Entry No. 66 of the exemption notification, and that any supply by a government or governmental authority is taxable unless exempted or covered by Schedule III.
➡️ The High Court explained that the law envisages two categories of supplies: those by non-State persons, taxable under Section 7(1) only if made in the course or furtherance of business, and those by the Central Government, State Government or local authorities, taxable irrespective of business unless immune under Schedule III or a specific notification. Although created by State legislation, the universities are not part of the State or Central Government or a local authority, so the first category applies and a statutory affiliation function cannot be equated with business.
➡️ On the alternative plea of exemption under Entry No. 6 of Notification No. 11/2017 and Entries 4 and 5 of Notification No. 12/2017, the High Court held that since the services are not taxable at all, the question of exemption does not arise. With the Supreme Court now seized of the matter, the taxability of affiliation and NOC fees charged by universities remains open, and universities and affiliated colleges should track the outcome before settling pending demands.
✔️ SC – The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax and Ors. Etc. vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada (JNTUK) Etc. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 56055/2026]
🔥📛 SC to examine issue concerning applicability of penalty u/s 122(1) on non-taxable persons
➡️ The Supreme Court issued notice in a Special Leave Petition against the Delhi High Court judgment which declined to express any opinion on whether the penalty under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act can be imposed on a person who is not a ‘taxable person’, an issue already pending before the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar Garg, and relegated the petitioners to the statutory appeal under Section 107.
➡️ The dispute arose from a common Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner imposing penalties under Sections 74, 76(2) and 122(1) in adjudication proceedings involving 61 companies or firms and 71 individuals connected with them. The petitioners were Managing Directors or Directors of companies alleged to have fraudulently availed and utilised ITC on invoices issued without any corresponding supply of goods.
➡️ The petitioners’ principal contention was that Section 122(1) applies only to a ‘taxable person’, whereas they had neither been treated as taxable persons nor had any tax demand been raised against them in their individual capacities. The Revenue responded that the order was appealable under Section 107 and the writ petitions should not be entertained.
➡️ The High Court noted that Section 122(1A) was neither invoked in the SCNs nor applied in the order, that an appeal under Section 107 was admittedly maintainable, and that since the SCNs were issued in 2020, before the substitution of the proviso to Section 107(6) with effect from October 1, 2025, the appellate remedy would be governed by Section 107(6) as it stood on the dates of the SCNs. Citing judicial propriety, it disposed of the petitions and left all grounds open before the Appellate Authority.
➡️ The Supreme Court has earlier granted leave in Mukesh Kumar Garg against the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of a challenge to penalty proceedings under Section 122(1A). With notice now issued in this matter as well, the Supreme Court will examine whether directors and other non-taxable persons can be penalised under Section 122(1), and persons facing such penalties should ensure the ground is preserved in their appeals.
✔️ SC – Anil Jain vs Union of India & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34703/2026]
🔥📛 SC: Issues notice in Revenue’s SLP against HC-judgment barring State-Officer from assessing IGST on imports
➡️ The Supreme Court issued notice on the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition, and on its application for condonation of delay, against the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment holding that assessment of imported goods for the purposes of the IGST Act must be conducted by the customs authorities and not by officers under the GST laws, making the matter returnable on November 30, 2026.
➡️ Avanti Feeds Limited, a manufacturer and supplier of aquatic feed, had claimed exemption under the IGST Act on the import of certain inputs for 2017-18 to 2022-23. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax inspected its premises and issued an intimation of tax ascertained as payable under Section 73(5) read with Rule 142(1A), which the assessee challenged in writ.
➡️ The High Court held that the rate and quantum of IGST on goods supplied in the course of import are determined under the Customs Tariff Act, that a State or Central GST proper officer located in a State which is not the point of entry cannot exercise jurisdiction at the point of entry, and that the jurisdiction to levy, assess and collect integrated tax on imported goods vests only with the customs officers. The IGST authorities nonetheless retain their role in assessing IGST on inter-State movement of goods within India.
➡️ The High Court further held that Section 6 of the CGST Act and Section 4 of the IGST Act empower an officer under the APGST Act to act under the CGST and IGST Acts only where the taxpayer is administratively allotted to the State. As the assessee was allotted to the Central Government, the State officer could not invoke cross-empowerment, and an APGST officer cannot otherwise exercise any power under the IGST Act.
➡️ Referring to Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd., the High Court also noted that a provision or notification struck down by any High Court becomes inoperative across India. The Supreme Court’s notice keeps open the division of jurisdiction between customs and GST officers over IGST on imports and the limits of cross-empowerment, on which importers facing State GST demands may continue to rely on the High Court ruling pending the final outcome.
✔️ SC – Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. vs Avanti Feeds Limited & Ors. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 41280/2026]
🔥📛 Kerala HC issues notice in Lions Club Rs.229 cr refund plea following IMA ruling
➡️ The Kerala High Court issued notice on a petition by the International Association of Lions Clubs seeking refund of over ₹229 crore collected as GST on membership dues, following the Division Bench ruling in Indian Medical Association which declared Section 2(17)(e), Section 7(1)(aa) and its Explanation unconstitutional on the basis of the doctrine of mutuality.
➡️ The assessee submitted that the amount was deposited during a DGGI investigation without accepting any tax liability, and that the proceedings under Section 74 were closed by orders dated August 23, 2024 passed under Section 74(6). After the Indian Medical Association ruling, it sought refund on the ground that the collection rested solely on provisions since declared ultra vires.
➡️ The DGGI declined to process the claim on two grounds: that the amounts were paid voluntarily and the matter stood closed under Section 74(6), with the closure orders recording that no refund application whatsoever would be entertained, and that any refund must be sought before the competent jurisdictional authority.
➡️ Challenging the DRC-01A intimations, the closure orders and the refund-rejection letters, the assessee argued that a consequential refund can be granted only once those orders are set aside. Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Mafatlal Industries, it submitted that amounts collected under a law declared ultra vires lose the character of tax and become a deposit that must be returned.
➡️ The Court was prima facie satisfied that the matter warrants further examination, issued notice to the Revenue and granted three weeks to file a counter. The case will test whether voluntary payment and closure under Section 74(6) can bar refunds of GST paid on member contributions under the struck-down provisions, an issue relevant to clubs, associations and societies that paid tax during investigations.
✔️ Kerala HC – The International Association of Lions Clubs v. Union of India & Ors [WP(C) 36905/2026]
