LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 08.06.2026
🔥📛 Madras HC rules on ITC denial solely for absence of lorry receipts/e-way bills, registration cancellation post-supplies
➡️ The Madras High Court quashed an order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the Assessee in respect of purchases made from Eco-Friendly Coco Products during AY 2018-19, where the denial was premised solely on the non-production of Lorry Receipts and E-Way bills, coupled with the subsequent cancellation of the supplier’s GST registration. The Court held that such mechanical denial, without a deeper enquiry into the genuineness of the underlying transactions, was unsustainable, particularly when material facts pointed towards bona fide supplies.
➡️ A critical factual finding was that the supplier was a duly registered person during the relevant period of supply (January 2018 to August 2018), and the cancellation of its GST registration occurred only subsequently. The Court emphasised that retrospective developments concerning the supplier’s registration cannot, by themselves, vitiate ITC claims pertaining to transactions undertaken when the supplier was validly registered, filing returns, and discharging tax liability on the disputed supplies.
➡️ On the evidentiary front, the Court took note that the tax invoices produced by the Assessee contained vehicle particulars through which goods were transported, and the impugned order itself recorded the Assessee’s submission that transportation had been arranged by the supplier. In such circumstances, the absence of Lorry Receipts and E-Way bills alone could not be treated as conclusive proof of non-movement of goods or of the transactions being non-genuine, especially where corroborative documentation existed.
➡️ While acknowledging the Revenue’s contention that the burden of proving admissibility of ITC rests upon the recipient under Section 155 read with Section 16 of the CGST Act, the Court clarified that this burden does not absolve the adjudicating authority from undertaking a meaningful enquiry. Where the recipient places on record tax invoices, supplier’s return filings, and proof of tax remittance by the supplier, the authorities are duty-bound to examine the genuineness of supplies substantively rather than rejecting ITC on procedural shortcomings.
➡️ Consequently, the Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with liberty to the Assessee to place additional grounds and materials on record, reinforcing the principle that ITC denial must rest on a holistic appreciation of evidence rather than isolated documentary deficiencies. For GST practitioners, the ruling underscores the importance of preserving contemporaneous transactional evidence such as invoices with vehicle details, supplier return-filing records, and proof of tax payment, while also reaffirming that authorities cannot mechanically confirm proposals without testing the substantive genuineness of disputed supplies.
✔️ Madras HC – AKAL TRADE LINKS VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [Writ Petition 20601/2023]
🔥📛 Madras HC rules that cancelled dealer not expected to monitor GST portal 6-years after cancellation
➡️ The Madras High Court interfered with a demand order against an Assessee whose GST registration had been suo motu cancelled by the Department in June 2019, holding that it would be unreasonable to expect a person to monitor the GST portal nearly six years after discontinuance of business and cancellation of registration. The Court recognised that while portal access may technically remain available post-cancellation, practical realities dictate that taxpayers cannot be presumed to actively track notices uploaded on the portal long after exiting the GST regime.
➡️ The ruling addresses a recurring procedural concern where Revenue authorities upload show cause notices and assessment orders on the GST portal of taxpayers whose registrations stand cancelled, treating such uploads as valid service. The Court’s intervention signals that the mode of service, though legally compliant in form, must be tested against the test of reasonableness, particularly where there has been a prolonged hiatus between cancellation and issuance of proceedings.
➡️ Notwithstanding Revenue’s contention that the assessment order did not warrant interference on merits, given that the petitioner had generated two e-way bills in respect of each invoice, the Court prioritised the principle of affording the Assessee a meaningful opportunity to contest the demand. The factual dispute regarding duplicate e-way bills was held to be a matter requiring proper adjudication on merits rather than ex parte confirmation in the absence of the taxpayer’s participation.
➡️ In crafting relief, the Court adopted a balanced approach by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, while simultaneously safeguarding Revenue interests through a conditional deposit. The Assessee was directed to remit 10% of the disputed tax amount within two weeks of receipt of the order, thereby ensuring that procedural indulgence does not translate into a windfall for taxpayers seeking to avoid scrutiny.
➡️ For GST practitioners, the decision reinforces the evolving jurisprudence on natural justice in the digital service framework under GST, particularly for taxpayers with cancelled registrations. It underscores the importance of advising clients to maintain portal monitoring protocols even post-cancellation, while equally arming practitioners with a precedent to seek remand where prolonged lapses, surrounding facts, and absence of actual knowledge render portal-based service practically inadequate.
✔️ Madras HC – MSK WORLDWIDE EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED, VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE [WP/20031/2026]
🔥📛 GSTAT: Directs re-investigation into profiteering by Laureate Buildwell; Directs DGAP to consider tax-rate impact
➡️ The GST Appellate Tribunal (Delhi) directed re-investigation of an anti-profiteering matter against Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., where the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) had alleged profiteering of Rs. 5,95,56,344 in connection with construction services, holding that the original investigation warranted a deeper examination of actual goods and services purchased in the post-GST period juxtaposed against applicable rates in the pre-GST regime. The Tribunal set aside the DGAP report and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry, signalling that profiteering computations under Section 171 of the CGST Act must rest on a robust comparative analysis rather than abstract calculations.
➡️ Although the Respondent claimed to have passed on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit aggregating Rs. 40,69,57,530, the DGAP determined that the benefit transmitted to 187 specific buyers fell short of the computed profiteering quantum by Rs. 5,95,56,344. The Tribunal’s intervention recognises that aggregate pass-through claims cannot be accepted at face value and that buyer-wise verification remains central to determining whether the commensurate reduction in price, as mandated under Section 171, has genuinely accrued to recipients.
➡️ A pivotal direction issued by the Tribunal pertains to the comparative methodology, requiring the DGAP to grant the Respondent proper and adequate opportunity to produce documents enabling a comparison of GST availed on post-GST purchases of goods and services with the ITC available on equivalent purchases in the pre-GST period. This comparative framework must receive adequate consideration while re-calculating the profiteering amount, reinforcing the principle that ITC benefit assessments cannot ignore the input-side tax incidence borne by the supplier across the two regimes.
➡️ The ruling underscores the procedural rigour that anti-profiteering investigations demand, particularly the obligation of the DGAP to afford the assessee a meaningful opportunity to place on record material evidence, including affidavits and supporting documentation. The Tribunal’s insistence on re-examination based on materials filed by the Respondent reflects the judicial recognition that profiteering determinations carry significant financial consequences and must therefore be founded on a transparent, evidence-driven process.
➡️ For GST practitioners, particularly those advising real estate and construction sector clients, the decision highlights the criticality of maintaining detailed transactional records spanning both pre-GST and post-GST procurement, alongside buyer-wise ITC pass-on documentation. The judgment also reinforces that even where aggregate ITC has been passed on, shortfalls at the individual buyer level can trigger profiteering liability, making it imperative to align pass-through mechanisms with the unit-level benefit accruing to each recipient.
✔️ GSTAT Delhi – DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP vs Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [NAPA/134/PB/2025]
🔥📛 GSTAT: Directs builder to pass on Rs. 79.94 lakhs profiteered amount to eligible homebuyers
➡️ The GST Appellate Tribunal (Delhi) directed Vasavi and GP Infra LLP to pass on a profiteered amount of Rs. 71,37,747 (exclusive of GST), along with GST at 12% amounting to Rs. 8,56,530, aggregating to Rs. 79,94,277, to eligible homebuyers in its “Vasavi GP Trends” project. The proceedings, originating from a complaint under Rule 128, established that the Respondent had failed to pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate price reduction upon the introduction of GST, thereby contravening Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
➡️ A significant aspect of the ruling concerns the inclusion of the GST component within the profiteered amount, with the Tribunal relying on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. to affirm that GST levied on the inflated base price forms part of the profiteering quantum recoverable from the supplier. This reinforces the principle that profiteering is not confined to the bare price differential but extends to the cascading tax incidence borne by the recipient on account of the supplier’s failure to effect commensurate reduction.
➡️ The Tribunal emphasised the mandatory character of Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which leaves no discretion in its application and mandates that the un-passed amount be returned to recipients along with interest at 18% per annum, calculated from the date of collection till actual return. This pronouncement settles any ambiguity regarding the interest component, making it abundantly clear that suppliers cannot escape interest liability by belatedly tendering the principal profiteered sum.
➡️ On the methodology of compliance, the Tribunal accepted that passing on of benefit through price adjustment constitutes a valid mode of compliance under Section 171 and does not necessarily require a separate cash refund, while acknowledging that Rs. 46,40,136 had already been passed on to 13 customers. However, the Tribunal categorically affirmed that excess benefit passed on to certain buyers cannot be adjusted against shortfalls pertaining to other buyers, since each recipient is independently entitled to the commensurate benefit, thereby preserving the buyer-wise integrity of the anti-profiteering framework.
➡️ For GST practitioners advising real estate developers, the decision crystallises several operational imperatives, namely that ITC pass-through must be computed and effected on a per-buyer basis, that price adjustments in agreements or demand letters qualify as valid compliance mechanisms, and that the GST component on the profiteered base attracts both recovery and interest at 18%. The ruling serves as a cautionary precedent that aggregate compliance claims will not insulate developers from liability where unit-level shortfalls subsist, mandating meticulous reconciliation of ITC benefits at the individual recipient level.
✔️ GSTAT Delhi HC – DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP vs Vasavi and GP Infra LLP [NAPA/28/PB/2025]
🔥📛 GSTAT: Confirms Rs. 1.72 cr profiteering by Nandi Infratech along with 18% interest
➡️ The GST Appellate Tribunal (Delhi) accepted the DGAP report and confirmed profiteering of Rs. 1,72,03,701 by Nandi Infratech Pvt. Ltd. in respect of its “AMAATRA HOMES” project, while holding the developer liable to pay interest at 18% per annum on the profiteered amount from the date of collection of the higher sum until its actual return, as mandated under Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Tribunal’s affirmation underscores that contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act attracts not merely the recovery of the principal profiteered amount but also a compensatory interest burden reflecting the time-value of money retained by the supplier.
➡️ The proceedings originated from a complaint before the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee on Profiteering under Rule 128, alleging that the Respondent had refused to pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of corresponding reduction in instalment amounts on the purchase of a flat. While the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) had initially held the Respondent guilty of profiteering, the matter was re-investigated following the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd., illustrating how that ruling has reshaped the methodology of anti-profiteering computations across pending cases.
➡️ A noteworthy feature of the case is that, although the Respondent had voluntarily passed on ITC benefit of Rs. 5,89,32,169 to homebuyers, the DGAP, upon revised computation, determined an additional eligible benefit of Rs. 14,79,117 still required to be transmitted. This reinforces that voluntary partial pass-through, even when substantial in absolute terms, does not extinguish anti-profiteering liability where the buyer-wise commensurate benefit remains incomplete, and the residual shortfall continues to attract recovery with interest.
➡️ The Tribunal placed particular emphasis on the applicant’s contention that the Respondent had retained the disputed money for over a decade, justifying entitlement to interest from the date of deposit. This recognition aligns with the legislative scheme under Rule 133(3)(b), which is restitutionary in character and is designed to neutralise the unjust enrichment that accrues to a supplier through prolonged retention of amounts that ought to have been passed on as ITC benefit at the time of collection itself.
➡️ For GST practitioners, particularly those engaged with real estate clients, the decision serves as a pointed reminder that the Reckitt Benckiser ruling has triggered systemic re-investigations of anti-profiteering matters, often resulting in revised liability determinations even after initial NAA orders. The judgment also illustrates the strategic value of voluntary acceptance of DGAP findings in mitigating litigation risk, while simultaneously underscoring that the interest exposure under Rule 133(3)(b) can be financially significant where the disputed amounts have been retained over prolonged periods.
✔️ GSTAT Delhi – DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti Profiteering, DGAP vs Nandi Infratech Pvt. Ltd. [NAPA/127/PB/2025]
