LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 06.07.2026
🔥📛 SC issues notice on SLP concerning date of communication of order for filing GST appeal
➡️ The Supreme Court issued notice on the Assessee’s SLP challenging the Orissa High Court ruling that upheld rejection of its GST appeal as time-barred for being filed beyond the maximum condonable period under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act.
➡️ The Assessee argues that limitation under Section 107(1) must run from the date of valid communication of the assessment order, with service tested against the prescribed modes under Section 169, and claims that the order dated November 21, 2023 was effectively communicated only on June 14, 2024.
➡️ Relying on a similar matter already pending before the Supreme Court under the identically worded UPGST provision, the Assessee contends that Section 169 creates deemed service for specified modes of communication but not for mere uploading of an order on the GST portal, requiring Revenue to prove communication beyond portal availability.
➡️ The Orissa High Court had rejected this argument because the Assessee itself stated in Form GST APL-01 that the Order-in-Original was communicated on November 21, 2023; treating that declaration as establishing communication, it held that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory outer limit and that the Appellate Authority had no power to condone further delay under Section 107(4).
➡️ The dispute therefore raises an important GST issue on what constitutes valid “communication” of an order for starting appellate limitation, particularly where portal uploading is relied upon, and the Supreme Court has listed the matter for further consideration on July 27, 2026.
✔️ SC – Sri Balaji Metallics Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CT & GST & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22223/2026]
🔥📛 Madras HC stays rectification proceedings seeking to reopen concluded assessment on identical issues
➡️ The Madras High Court issued notice to the Revenue in a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning issues that had already been adjudicated through a show cause notice and assessment order.
➡️ The petitioner contended that the rectification provision was improperly invoked to reopen concluded issues and reaffirm the same tax demand, effectively revisiting an already completed adjudication.
➡️ The Court prima facie noted that the dispute raises a fundamental question on the permissible scope of Section 161, particularly whether rectification can extend beyond correcting apparent errors to reconsidering matters already decided on merits.
➡️ The proceedings highlight the legal distinction between rectification of an evident mistake and substantive review or reassessment, with important implications for the finality of GST adjudication orders.
➡️ Pending further consideration of the issue and the Revenue’s response, the High Court stayed the impugned proceedings, providing interim protection against the continued use of Section 161 to revisit the same adjudicated issues.
✔️ Madras HC – Shree Shyamaba Container Service vs The Assistant Commissioner
🔥📛 ASG rebuts ‘no consideration, no GST’ plea; Defends rules against excessive delegation and 1% valuation-mechanism
➡️ The Revenue argued that, under Section 7(1)(c) read with Schedule I of the CGST Act, a transaction between related or distinct persons can qualify as a “supply” even without consideration. Unlike the service tax regime, GST consciously dispenses with consideration in specified cases; therefore, a corporate guarantee furnished by a holding company to its subsidiary may be taxable merely because it constitutes a supply in the course or furtherance of business.
➡️ The Revenue sought to distinguish the Supreme Court’s decision in Edelweiss and its subsequent application by the Bombay High Court, contending that those rulings did not fully consider Section 7(1)(c), Schedule I, Sections 15 and 25(4)–(5), which expressly recognise supplies without consideration. The Court indicated reluctance to rely on those precedents and asked the Revenue to independently establish the levy from the statutory scheme.
➡️ On valuation, the Revenue defended Rule 28(2), including the deemed value of 1% for corporate guarantees, as validly sourced in Sections 15(4) and 15(5), which permit prescribed valuation where the normal transaction-value rule under Section 15(1) cannot apply. It further argued that holding and subsidiary companies are “related persons” under the Explanation to Section 15 and Schedule I, and that the 1% benchmark reflects accepted guarantee-pricing norms and a considered GST Council recommendation.
➡️ As an alternative basis, the Revenue relied on Section 7(1A) read with paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II, arguing that a holding company’s agreement to extend a guarantee for its subsidiary may amount to “agreeing to do an act” and therefore constitute a service. It also rejected the claim that a corporate guarantee is itself a debt or actionable claim, submitting under the IBC and Contract Act that a guarantor does not become a debtor merely by giving a guarantee; instead, the guarantee protects group commercial interests and is connected with business.
➡️ The Revenue urged a broad and commercially responsive interpretation of “supply,” relying on Gameskraft, while distinguishing foreign decisions from the United States and Australia as arising under different statutory and factual settings. It also defended the retrospective change to Rule 28(2) as a permissible retroactive measure intended to ensure parity among taxpayers rather than an unconstitutional retrospective levy, and sought dismissal of the petitions; the matters were adjourned for the assessees’ rejoinder.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Torrent Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI & ors
🔥📛 Telangana HC clarifies on interim-order staying adjudication of Rs. 206 cr refund recovery against NATCO
➡️ Telangana High Court stayed the GST adjudication proceedings seeking recovery of refunds of about ₹206 crore sanctioned to NATCO Pharmaceuticals, clarifying that its interim order dated November 7, 2025 expressly restrains adjudication of the show-cause notice until disposal of the writ petition.
➡️ The clarification addresses the Revenue’s objection that the earlier interim order had not specifically stayed adjudication proceedings, thereby confirming that no further adjudication of the disputed notice may proceed during the writ petition’s pendency.
➡️ The show-cause notice issued under Sections 74 and 74A seeks recovery of refunds granted for 2020-21 to 2024-25 on the allegation that the grant of exclusive licensing and marketing rights does not qualify as export of services.
➡️ The assessee contends that refund sanction orders, having attained finality without appeal under Section 107 or revision under Section 108, cannot subsequently be reopened and recovered through proceedings under Sections 74 or 74A.
➡️ The assessee further argues that the refund entitlement remains unaffected whether the transaction is classified as export of goods or services, making the dispute revenue-neutral, and that the Department cannot rewrite the parties’ contractual arrangement by disputing the nature of supply; the matter is listed for July 14, 2026.
✔️ Telangana HC – M/s Natco Pharma Limited v. Union of india [WP NO: 33663 OF 2025]
