LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 06.01.2026
🔥📛 HC: Quashes GST registration cancellation post-CIRP; Directs reconsideration by treating new management distinctly
➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that once a company undergoes CIRP and a new management is installed pursuant to NCLT orders, the legal consequences of such change in control must be fully recognised by tax authorities.
➡️ Proceedings rejecting amendment of GST registration and cancelling registration cannot be sustained when they are founded on alleged past infractions attributable solely to the erstwhile management, after control has lawfully shifted to new management.
➡️ The Court found that the proper officer proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the old management continued to operate the assessee, rendering the rejection of amendment (Form GST REG-05) and suo motu cancellation (Form GST REG-19) legally flawed.
➡️ Since the GST registration had already been restored post-CIRP, the assessee was entitled to seek amendment of its registration (including change of operational address), and such request must be examined on its own merits after considering the assessee’s objections.
➡️ The impugned orders were quashed, and the proper officer was directed to consider the assessee’s objections dated 03.11.2025 and pass a reasoned order within three weeks. The Court clarified that this does not bar the Revenue from initiating action for any future infractions, if they arise.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – R K I Builders Private Limited Vs. The Superintendent of Central Taxes [WRIT PETITION NO: 32994/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Unsigned GST assessment order invalid; Sets aside DRC-07, permits fresh adjudication
➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 without the signature of the proper officer suffers from a fatal defect that goes to the root of jurisdiction, rendering the entire proceeding invalid.
➡️ The Court reiterated its consistent view (A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises, SRS Traders) that absence of signature cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act, as these provisions do not validate a fundamentally invalid order.
➡️ Relying on Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, the Court held that service of an unsigned order is no service in the eyes of law. Consequently, any delay in approaching the Court is immaterial when the foundational requirement of valid service is absent.
➡️ The Revenue fairly conceded that the impugned order was unsigned. The Court also concurred with the Madras High Court’s view in T.V.L. Deepa Traders that an unsigned order cannot be treated as a validly served assessment order.
➡️ The assessment was quashed with liberty to the proper officer to conduct a fresh assessment after due notice and by issuing a duly signed order. For limitation purposes, the Court directed exclusion of the period from the date of the impugned order until receipt of the present judgment.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – D. Bhuvaneswara Reddy Vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO: 34205/2025]
🔥📛 Services provided abroad without forex receipt is taxable but barred export benefits; CBIC to clarify: HC
➡️ Services provided by the Indian assessee to its German affiliate under a Network Agreement, even without monetary consideration, qualify as a “supply” under Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the assessee was correct in initially discharging GST on such services.
➡️ The assessee contended that since the recipient (German company) was located outside India, the services should qualify as export of services and hence as zero-rated supply under the IGST Act, 2017.
➡️ One of the mandatory conditions for export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act is receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange. In the present case, no such consideration was received, resulting in non-fulfilment of this condition.
➡️ The Court clarified that non-receipt of foreign exchange does not exempt the assessee from payment of GST. Instead, it only disentitles the assessee from availing benefits associated with zero-rated supplies (such as refund or tax-free export status).
➡️ A prima facie view was taken that Section 7 of the CGST Act and Sections 16(1)(a) and 2(6) of the IGST Act require harmonious interpretation. Given that similar issues are pending before multiple High Courts, the Court observed that CBIC should examine the matter and place its position before the judiciary to ensure clarity and consistency.
✔️ Delhi HC – Dhl Express (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 17182 of 2025]
🔥📛 Interest claim on delayed IGST refund pursued before Customs authorities; appeal before GST authorities allowed: HC
➡️ The assessee sought interest on delayed refund of IGST and delayed payment of drawback, both initially claimed before Customs authorities. While interest on drawback was partly allowed, the claim for interest on IGST refund was rejected on jurisdictional grounds.
➡️ The Customs Appellate Authority held that interest on IGST refund does not fall within the Customs appellate framework and must be adjudicated under the GST law, specifically by the GST Appellate Authority.
➡️ The High Court noted that the assessee had consistently and bona fide pursued the claim, albeit before Customs authorities, and that the objection regarding improper forum was raised for the first time at the appellate stage.
➡️ Considering the assessee’s diligence and absence of mala fide intent, the High Court permitted the assessee to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Authority, notwithstanding the earlier pursuit under the Customs framework.
➡️ The GST Appellate Authority was directed to entertain and decide the appeal on merits, specifically on the issue of interest on delayed IGST refund, without being influenced by the earlier proceedings under the Customs Act.
✔️ Bombay HC – Gulabdas International Trading LLP v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 320 OF 2024]
🔥📛 FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offence; investigation should be allowed to proceed: HC
➡️ The FIR alleged issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods/services through non-existent firms, aimed at wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit (ITC). Such allegations, on their face, constitute cognizable offences under GST law.
➡️ Depending on how the firm was registered and how business activities were conducted (e.g., fake premises, paper transactions), the same facts could also attract offences under the IPC, such as cheating or forgery, in addition to GST offences.
➡️ Investigation had been completed, a final report filed, cognizance taken by the trial court, and charges framed. The matter had already progressed to the stage of prosecution evidence, with no prior challenge to the framing of charges.
➡️ At the pre-trial stage, the court’s test is limited to whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and whether interference is necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice—not to assess the sufficiency of evidence.
➡️ Issues regarding genuineness of transactions, validity of ITC, or factual disputes must be examined by the trial court based on evidence. Given the advanced stage of proceedings and limited scope of inherent powers, no grounds for quashing the FIR were made out, and the petition was dismissed.
✔️ P&H HC – Vishal v. State of Haryana [CRM-M No. 41128 of 2022 (O & M)]
🔥📛 Appeal beyond 120-day outer limit under sec. 107 cannot be condoned; rejection as time-barred upheld: HC
➡️ Appeals under GST must be filed strictly within the limitation period prescribed by statute, including the maximum period allowed for condonation of delay. Once this outer limit expires, the right to appeal is extinguished.
➡️ The Appellate Authority is bound by the statute and cannot entertain or admit an appeal filed beyond the prescribed condonation period, regardless of the reasons cited by the appellant.
➡️ Although High Courts have wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, these powers cannot be exercised to override or disregard clear legislative intent, particularly where a statute expressly restricts timelines for redressal.
➡️ A writ petition cannot be used as an alternative remedy to revive a time-barred appeal. The High Court cannot set aside the Appellate Authority’s order or direct acceptance of an appeal filed beyond the statutory condonation period.
➡️ Grounds such as illness of an accountant or closure of business, while sympathetic, do not justify ignoring statutory limitation provisions. Compliance with timelines remains a strict requirement under GST law.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Tapi Ready Plast v. State of Gujarat [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12047 of 2025]
🔥📛 ITC blocking cannot extend beyond one year without fresh material as sec. 83(2) mandates maximum limit: HC
➡️ Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules clearly provides that any restriction on utilisation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) must automatically cease after one year from the date of its imposition.
➡️ Section 83(2) of the CGST Act similarly restricts provisional attachment to a maximum period of one year, underscoring the legislative intent that such protective measures cannot be indefinite.
➡️ The Supreme Court has clarified that provisional attachment (and by extension ITC blocking) is protective in nature, meant to safeguard revenue during proceedings, and cannot be used as a substitute for recovery.
➡️ Continuation or re-imposition of ITC blocking beyond one year is impermissible without new grounds, fresh material, or further statutory proceedings. Mere repetition of earlier allegations (such as supplier being non-existent) is insufficient.
➡️ In the absence of fresh action or proceedings by the department, continuing or re-blocking ITC beyond one year was held unsustainable, leading to the writ petition being allowed and the ITC block being set aside.
✔️ P&H HC – NB International v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax [CWP No. 4938 of 2025]
🔥📛 Money is excluded from the definition of goods, cash can’t be seized unless linked to taxable supply: HC
➡️ Section 67 empowers GST authorities to search and seize goods, documents, books, or things only if they have a reason to believe that such items are useful or relevant to proceedings under the GST law. This power is not unlimited and must be exercised strictly within statutory boundaries.
➡️ The court reaffirmed that money (cash) is expressly excluded from the definition of goods under GST. Therefore, cash cannot be seized merely by invoking the power to seize goods during search proceedings.
➡️ For seizure to be valid, GST authorities must demonstrate with reasonable conviction that the seized item (including any “thing”) has a clear and traceable connection with taxable supplies or GST violations. Mere possession of large or unexplained cash is insufficient.
➡️ The department’s claim that the cash represented proceeds of clandestine supplies was held to be unsupported by evidence. In the absence of correlation with specific transactions, invoices, or taxable events, seizure of cash exceeds statutory authority.
➡️ Since the GST authorities failed to establish the relevance or utility of the seized cash for GST proceedings, the action was held to be beyond their powers. Consequently, the authorities were directed to de-seal and release the seized cash (₹24 lakhs) for lawful use by the petitioners.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Puspa Furniture (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [WPA No. 19155 of 2025]
🔥📛 Returns, invoices, e-way bills proved trade and State authority passing order lacked jurisdiction; demand quashed: HC
➡️ Proceedings under Section 74 can be initiated only when there is clear evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. In this case, neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order recorded any such findings supported by evidence, rendering the invocation of Section 74 legally unsustainable.
➡️ Despite the petitioner filing a detailed reply with documentary evidence, the adjudicating authority passed the order without granting an opportunity of personal hearing. This failure amounted to a breach of natural justice and vitiated the impugned order.
➡️ The petitioner specifically contended that it fell under the jurisdiction of the Central GST authorities. No cross-empowerment notification or supporting material was produced by the State GST authorities to justify assumption of jurisdiction, making the proceedings jurisdictionally invalid.
➡️ All purchases and sales were duly reflected in books of accounts, GSTR filings, and the GST portal. Transactions were supported by tax invoices, e-way bills, bilty, bank statements, and ledgers, clearly evidencing actual physical movement of goods and genuine business activity.
➡️ The demand was based primarily on a survey and transactions with one supplier, despite the fact that proceedings against the supplier had already been set aside by the CGST Anti-Evasion authority. Ignoring documentary evidence and relying solely on survey findings was held to be arbitrary, leading to quashing of the impugned order.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Raghuvansh Agro Farms Ltd. v. State of U.P. [Writ Tax No. 3829 of 2025]
🔥📛 No denial of IGST refund on basis of 2nd CRCL report without issuing SCN to exporter: HC
➡️ The first CRCL test reports, issued after sampling the exported goods, were held to be binding since they raised no objection. Any subsequent “clarification” without fresh sampling or scientific basis was held to be legally unsustainable.
➡️ The second CRCL reports were rejected as non-tenable because no new samples were drawn and no reasoning was provided to justify reclassification of the goods as Gutka. Such post-facto clarifications cannot override valid test reports.
➡️ Based on the flawed second CRCL reports, the Customs Commissioner’s direction to the GST Department to withhold refunds was held to be unjustified. Refund denial must be supported by legally valid and reasoned findings.
➡️ Since provisional release of goods was secured by bank guarantees and no sustainable adverse finding existed, the authorities were directed to consider the petitioners’ representations and take a reasoned decision on releasing the bank guarantees.
➡️ If the department intended to proceed against the petitioners, any SCN must be issued expeditiously. Delays leading to uncertainty or blockage of future exports were held to be improper and detrimental to legitimate business operations.
✔️ Delhi HC – National Fregrance v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 18728 and 18744 OF 2025]
