LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 25.03.2026
🔥📛 Bombay HC grants protection to Reliance-Infrastructure basis Revenue’s adjustment of refund towards pre-deposit pending appeal
➡️ The assessee challenged an order requiring additional pre-deposit for filing an appeal under the MVAT Act, arguing that a refund of approximately ₹5.78 crore already granted/adjusted by the Revenue should be considered towards the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
➡️ The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not adjudicate the assessee’s application seeking adjustment of the refund and instead orally insisted on payment of 10% of the remaining demand, effectively ignoring the refund already adjusted.
➡️ The High Court observed that the statutory appeal filed by the assessee was maintainable and that the application for adjustment of the refund was still pending consideration before the FAA.
➡️ The Court emphasized that such adjustment requests must be properly examined before insisting on further pre-deposit, as failure to do so could unfairly burden the assessee and defeat procedural fairness.
➡️ Pending disposal of the adjustment application, the High Court directed the FAA to decide the matter expeditiously and granted interim protection by restraining the Revenue from taking any coercive action against the assessee, thereby safeguarding the assessee’s rights during appellate proceedings.
✔️ Bombay HC – Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. The State of Maharashtra
🔥📛 SC examines split classification of tobacco under GST vis-à-vis Central-Excise; Grants interim protection to tobacco-manufacturers
➡️ The Supreme Court has issued notice in Special Leave Petitions challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment on the classification of non-fermented, non-liquored crushed tobacco leaves without additives, and has granted interim protection against coercive action.
➡️ The Gujarat High Court had adopted a split classification approach, treating the product as “unmanufactured tobacco” under Tariff Heading 2401 for Central Excise, while classifying it as “chewing tobacco” under Tariff Heading 2403 for GST and Compensation Cess purposes.
➡️ Assessees have challenged this dual treatment as arbitrary, arguing that classification under an HSN-based framework must remain uniform across tax statutes when the product and its characteristics are identical.
➡️ The dispute raises a key legal issue on whether the same product can be classified differently under different indirect tax regimes despite reliance on a common tariff structure and harmonized system principles.
➡️ The Supreme Court’s intervention indicates the significance of ensuring consistency in classification under GST, with the final outcome likely to have broader implications for similar disputes involving overlapping tariff interpretations across tax laws.
✔️ SC – Patel Products & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8611/2026]
🔥📛 SC tags Sutherland’s plea challenging vires of notification restricting cess transition with pending SLP
➡️ The Supreme Court has issued notice and tagged the SLP filed by Sutherland Global challenging the Madras High Court judgment, which upheld Para 2(iv) of Notification No. 15/2017-CT amending Rule 117, thereby restricting transitional credit only to “eligible duties and taxes” under Section 140 of the CGST Act.
➡️ The dispute centers on the denial of transition of certain cesses, with the Madras High Court relying on its earlier rulings in the assessee’s own cases to hold that such cesses are not eligible for carry forward into the GST regime.
➡️ The High Court had dismissed the assessee’s challenge to the validity of the notification and directed the assessee to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court, especially since a related SLP concerning actual denial of transitional credit by a Division Bench of the same High Court was already pending.
➡️ Recognizing that connected issues involving the same assessee and similar legal questions are already before it, the Supreme Court has decided to tag the matters to ensure consistent adjudication and avoid conflicting outcomes.
➡️ The Supreme Court has granted liberty to the assessee to serve advance copies of the petition to the Revenue, facilitating early response and coordinated hearing alongside the pending related matters on transitional credit eligibility.
✔️ SC – Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9085-9088/2026]
🔥📛 HC: Milroc & Rite Water decisions on composite notices bind Revenue, being subsequent to Mathur Polymers ruling
➡️ The Bombay High Court held that issuing a single show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act for multiple financial years (FY 2019–20 to 2022–23) is not permissible, reaffirming that each tax period must be assessed independently to ensure procedural fairness and clarity for the assessee.
➡️ The Court relied on its earlier rulings in Milroc Good Earth Developers and Rite Water Solutions (India), reiterating that clubbing multiple assessment periods in one notice violates the statutory scheme and cannot be sustained in law.
➡️ Rejecting the Revenue’s reliance on the Delhi High Court decision in Mathur Polymers, the Court clarified that dismissal of the SLP against that judgment in limine does not amount to affirmation on merits, and therefore, the doctrine of merger does not apply.
➡️ The Court emphasized that its own subsequent decisions, even if contrary to another High Court’s view, are binding on authorities within its jurisdiction, reinforcing judicial discipline and certainty for GST administration in the state.
➡️ While setting aside the impugned notice, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to re-issue proper notices for separate periods and allowed the possibility of revival of proceedings if its earlier judgments are overturned, thereby balancing procedural compliance with Revenue’s interests.
✔️ Bombay HC – Kohli Road Lines vs Joint Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex. Audit [WRIT PETITION NO. 1935/2026]
🔥📛 HC: 2-year time-limit for filing refund claim mandatory; Condonation only through writ jurisdiction
➡️ Karnataka High Court held that the 2-year limitation for claiming refunds under Section 54 of the CGST Act is mandatory, overturning the Single Judge’s view that it is merely directory, emphasizing that GST is a strict, time-bound statutory framework.
➡️ The Court reasoned that relaxing the limitation under Section 54 without corresponding adjustments to adjudication timelines under Sections 73 and 74 would disrupt the statutory scheme, rendering it unworkable and inconsistent.
➡️ Interpreting the word “may” in Section 54, the Court clarified that its presence does not automatically make a provision directory; its nature must be determined from the context, and here it supports a mandatory interpretation.
➡️ Despite holding the limitation as mandatory, the Court recognized that denying relief altogether could lead to unjust outcomes; therefore, in the absence of a statutory condonation mechanism, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available in deserving cases.
➡️ The Court laid down that delay condonation under writ jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously on a case-to-case basis, ensuring parity by allowing corresponding time to Revenue under Sections 73/74, and in this case, condoned a 6-month delay due to admitted double taxation and directed refund processing within 60 days.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes & Ors. v. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd. [WRIT APPEAL No. 119 OF 2026 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 Bombay HC reserves judgment in pleas challenging denial of RODTEP benefits to sugar exporters
➡️ The Bombay High Court has reserved judgment in a batch of petitions concerning denial of RoDTEP benefits to sugar exporters, while taking on record additional submissions highlighting post-judgment administrative developments following the Gujarat High Court ruling in the Renuka Sugar case.
➡️ Assessees demonstrated that Gujarat Customs acknowledged finality of the issue and directed grant of RoDTEP benefits via communications to DGFT, leading to actual disbursal of benefits at Gujarat and Kandla ports (excluding interest, which remains under separate proceedings).
➡️ Reliance was placed on official correspondence indicating that the Additional Solicitor General had advised against filing a review petition after dismissal of the Revenue’s SLP, reinforcing that the Gujarat High Court ruling has attained finality and should be uniformly implemented.
➡️ Assessees raised an Article 14 challenge, arguing that denial of RoDTEP benefits to “restricted” exports (which are conditionally permitted) creates unjust discrimination compared to “free” exports, despite both resulting in actual exports and foreign exchange earnings.
➡️ Interpreting the scheme framework, assessees contended that notifications, export quotas, and permissions collectively establish that restricted sugar exports are permissible and should be harmonized with RoDTEP provisions; the Court emphasized judicial discipline and observed that, absent any pending challenge, the Revenue is obligated to apply the settled legal position consistently.
✔️ Bombay HC – RIKA GLOBAL IMPEX LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
