LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 03.01.2026
🔥📛 Demand raised against deceased without notice to legal representative held invalid as notice is mandatory: HC
➡️ Any GST determination or demand issued in the name of a person after their death is legally unsustainable. Proceedings cannot continue against a dead person as they lack legal existence.
➡️ Issuance of a proper notice to the legal representative is a sine qua non (essential precondition) before initiating or continuing any determination proceedings under GST after the taxpayer’s death.
➡️ GST liability provisions relating to legal representatives only create an obligation to discharge existing dues, subject to conditions such as continuation or discontinuation of business—they do not authorize fresh determination against the deceased.
➡️ Where determination and demand are made after the death of the proprietor without issuing notice to the legal representative, such orders are void ab initio and cannot be enforced.
➡️ While the impugned determination was quashed, the Court preserved the revenue’s right to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law by properly issuing notice to the legal representative.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Sambul Shahid v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. 1425 of 2025]
🔥📛 Detention u/s 129 for PIN code error in e-way bill unjustified as all documents valid and address correct: HC
➡️ The petitioner, a GST-registered proprietorship engaged in threshing machinery, transported goods under a valid tax invoice, e-way bill, and GRs in a bill-to ship-to transaction. On interception, physical verification revealed no mismatch in goods or documents; the only discrepancy was an incorrect PIN code in the “ship-to” details of the e-way bill, while the address itself was correct.
➡️ Despite the absence of discrepancies in quantity, description, or ownership of goods, the authorities detained the goods and conveyance and issued seizure orders (MOV-06) and show cause notice (DRC-01), culminating in orders under section 129(3), solely on account of the PIN code error.
➡️ The Court relied on Clause 5(b) of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, which clarifies that where goods are accompanied by a valid invoice and e-way bill, detention under section 129 should not be initiated for minor errors, such as a wrong PIN code, particularly when e-way bill validity is otherwise intact.
➡️ Since the address was correct and there was no allegation of tax evasion or intent to contravene the Act, the Court held that the initiation of proceedings solely on a clerical PIN error was unjustified and contrary to the CBIC’s own clarificatory circular.
➡️ The Court quashed the orders passed under section 129(3) and allowed the writ petition, reinforcing that procedural or clerical mistakes in e-way bills, without revenue impact or mala fide intent, cannot form the sole basis for detention. This judgment provides strong support to taxpayers against mechanical application of detention provisions for minor lapses.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Rc Sales and Services v. State of Uttar Pradesh [WRIT TAX No. 6706 of 2025]
🔥📛 Delay in filing appeal condoned as non-filing was due to pending adjudication under sec. 168A: HC
➡️ The petitioner-taxpayer failed to file an appeal within the statutory limitation period prescribed under section 107 of the GST Act, primarily due to an order being wrongly uploaded on the GST portal and the matter being intertwined with proceedings under section 168A.
➡️ Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction, raising issues identical to those already decided in an earlier batch of similar cases.
➡️ The Court took note of the factual background, including the incorrect portal upload, the pendency and uncertainty arising from section 168A-related adjudication, and the petitioner’s bona fide belief that the appeal could not be effectively pursued during that period.
➡️ Given that the non-filing of the appeal was not deliberate but attributable to ongoing adjudication and circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, the Court held that the delay deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice.
➡️ The petitioner was permitted to file the appeal within one month, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal strictly on merits, without rejecting it on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
✔️ Rajasthan HC – Shri Vijay Laxmi Traders v. Union of India [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16098 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC directs tax authorities to consider tax deposited under CGST & SGST while imposing liability for non-payment of IGST
➡️ The dispute centered on a bona fide error where the assessee paid tax under the heads of CGST and SGST instead of IGST, despite the liability being under IGST. There was no allegation of fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement.
➡️ The assessee had clearly brought the mistake to the notice of both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority, explaining that the tax liability had been discharged, albeit under the wrong tax heads.
➡️ The tax authorities failed to consider the CGST and SGST payments while confirming demand under IGST, and wrongly treated the case as one of non-payment of tax, leading to unwarranted demand and liability.
➡️ The court emphasized that since the tax amount had already been paid (though under an incorrect head), the situation amounted to a technical misclassification rather than tax evasion. In substance, there was no loss of revenue to the Government.
➡️ The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded with directions to re-adjust CGST and SGST payments against IGST liability. If excess tax had been paid, the assessee was held entitled to a refund in accordance with Section 77, to be granted expeditiously.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Ocean E Mart v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. 1358 of 2025]
🔥📛 For pre-GST VAT regime works contracts, GST paid on GST regime; differential payments is reimbursable: HC
➡️ Works contracts executed prior to 01-07-2017 fall entirely under the pre-GST regime (KVAT/service tax), even if payments were received after GST implementation. Post-GST receipt of payment does not attract GST for pre-GST executed work.
➡️ Contracts spanning the GST transition must be bifurcated:
—> Work executed up to 30-06-2017 to be assessed under KVAT/service tax, and
—> Balance work executed on or after 01-07-2017 to be assessed under GST, based on original contract terms.
➡️ For balance works post-GST, the material component must be re-derived, pre-GST taxes (KVAT/service tax, if any) deducted, and GST applied afresh. Eligible input tax credit (ITC) on materials must be computed and set off against output GST liability.
➡️ A separate calculation of tax difference is required for post-GST work. Based on this computation, the employer/authority must determine whether the original agreement requires modification, potentially through a supplementary GST-inclusive agreement.
➡️ If the revised GST-inclusive value of post-GST work exceeds the original contract value, or if payments for pre-GST work were made after GST, the contractor is entitled to reimbursement of the differential tax. Contractors must submit comprehensive representations to the concerned employers to claim such reimbursement.
✔️ Karnataka HC – N.R. Kulkarni NRK Construction Company v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 145682 OF 2020 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 Penalty for missing vehicle number in e-way bill Part-B was unsustainable being curable error with no tax evasion intent: HC
➡️ The dispute centered on detention of goods solely due to non-mention of the vehicle number in Part-B of the e-way bill, despite the presence of a valid invoice and Part-A, and complete matching of goods and conveyance with supporting documents.
➡️ The omission to fill Part-B was held to be a curable and technical defect, not one that invalidates the e-way bill when there are no discrepancies in the invoice, goods, quantity, or conveyance at the time of interception.
➡️ In the absence of any material indicating malafide intention or intent to evade tax, mere non-mention of the vehicle number could not justify invocation of section 129 (detention and penalty provisions).
➡️ The appellate authority correctly appreciated the facts and law by setting aside the harsh penalty and restricting liability to a general penalty of ₹25,000, recognizing the bona fide explanation offered by the assessee.
➡️ The revisionary authority erred in restoring the original penalty order without addressing the settled principle that procedural lapses without revenue implication do not warrant section 129 penalties; consequently, the appellate authority’s order quashing the penalty was rightly restored.
✔️ Karnataka HC – BVM Trans Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [WRIT PETITION No. 5465 OF 2025 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 Order passed without affording opportunity of hearing where adverse decision was contemplated to be quashed: HC
➡️ The case concerned a demand for tax/ITC for FY 2022-23 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, i.e., cases not involving fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement.
➡️ The assessee challenged the demand order on the ground of violation of natural justice, alleging that no personal hearing was granted before passing the adverse order.
➡️ The department argued that personal hearing is required only if specifically requested by the assessee, and since no such request was made, the order was valid.
➡️ The court clarified that Section 75(4) mandates a personal hearing not only on request, but also whenever an adverse decision is contemplated, irrespective of whether the assessee asks for it.
➡️ As no opportunity of hearing was provided despite an adverse decision, the order was held to be invalid and quashed.
✔️ Madhya Pradesh HC – Sayyad Akhtar Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh [WRIT PETITION No. 46958 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Rejection of GST appeal for non-filing of appeal hard copy unsustainable; Remands matter
➡️ The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that an appeal filed electronically in Form GST APL-01, within limitation and with the prescribed pre-deposit, constitutes a valid appeal under Section 107 of the J&K GST Act, in the absence of any statutory notification mandating compulsory hard-copy filing.
➡️ The appellate authority’s rejection of the appeal solely for non-submission of a hard copy and certified copy of the impugned order was held to be untenable, as procedural technicalities cannot override the right to statutory appeal, especially when compliance is substantially met.
➡️ The Court noted that the amended Rule 108 of the GST Rules removes the requirement of filing a certified copy of the order where the adjudication order is already uploaded on the GST portal, reinforcing the validity of a fully electronic appellate process.
➡️ The Revenue’s defence based on the earlier version of Rule 108 was not accepted, as the Court emphasized that procedural rules must be interpreted in light of legislative intent, technological framework of GST, and subsequent amendments promoting digital compliance.
➡️ The High Court observed that rejection of the appeal without granting an opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice, and accordingly set aside the rejection order, remanding the matter to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merits after due hearing.
✔️ J&K HC – TC Tours Limited v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors. [WP(C) No. 809/2024]
🔥📛 HC: Dismisses writ challenging GST demand based on self-assessed GSTR-1 liability
➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that once a taxpayer raises invoices and declares outward supplies in GSTR-1, the resulting tax liability is self-assessed and enforceable. Non-filing of GSTR-3B does not dilute or defer this liability.
➡️ The plea that services were not availed or invoices were unpaid during the Covid-19 period was rejected. The Court clarified that GST liability arises on supply and invoicing, not on receipt of consideration, especially when turnover is voluntarily disclosed in returns.
➡️ The Assessee never challenged the cancellation of registration under Section 29(2). The Court drew an adverse inference, observing that the taxpayer was “blowing hot and cold”, undermining the credibility of its claims.
➡️ Although the Assessee sought adjustment through credit notes, the Court held that such benefit is unavailable unless credit notes are duly declared in the prescribed returns within statutory timelines.
➡️ The challenge to the order for lack of a digital signature was dismissed, with the Court affirming that electronic issuance with DIN/RFN is valid authentication. Since the Assessee neither filed objections to the SCN nor disputed liability in personal hearing—and instead sought instalments—the writ petition was found to be an afterthought, warranting no interference.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – O and G Skills India Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST [WRIT PETITION NO: 7734/2024]
