LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 29.04.2026
🔥📛 Rajasthan-HC stays Rs. 150 cr SCN denying 70:30 benefit on parts of solar power generating system
➡️ The Rajasthan High Court issued notice and granted interim stay on a consolidated show cause notice demanding nearly Rs. 150 crore in GST, interest, and penalty for FY 2019–20 to 2024–25, where the department denied the 70:30 deemed valuation benefit applicable to supplies relating to solar power generating systems under Entry 234 of Notification No. 01/2017-CT(R).
➡️ The department alleged that the concessional GST treatment for parts of solar power generating systems is available only when such parts are supplied together with the complete solar power generating system and when the supplied goods contribute the essential character of power generation to the overall supply.
➡️ The assessee challenged the invocation of Section 74 on the ground that the show cause notice did not disclose the mandatory jurisdictional facts establishing wilful misstatement, fraud, or suppression of facts, which are necessary preconditions for initiating extended period proceedings and imposing penalty under the provision.
➡️ The assessee also questioned the competence of the adjudicating authority by contending that the Additional/Joint Commissioner at Jodhpur could not adjudicate a notice issued by DGGI authorities, and further challenged Notification No. 14/2017 and Circular No. 3/3/2017 insofar as they confer ‘Proper Officer’ powers under Section 74 upon the Additional Director of DGGI.
➡️ Considering the prima facie jurisdictional objections raised by the assessee, the High Court granted interim protection and stayed the operation of the composite show cause notice until further orders, while relying upon a similar interim order previously passed in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
✔️ Rajasthan HC – Acme Solar Holdings Limited vs UOI & ors [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8513/2026]
🔥📛 AP HC to examine if taxing all-India-turnover vs State, constitutes error apparent; Grants interim-stay
➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted an interim stay on GST recovery proceedings arising from an assessment order covering FYs 2019-20 to 2020-21, pending further examination of the issues raised by the assessee.
➡️ The Court prima facie observed that non-consideration of GST returns while passing the assessment order may amount to an “error apparent on the face of the record,” making the case fit for rectification under the applicable legal provisions.
➡️ A key issue identified by the Court was the Revenue’s action of levying tax on the assessee’s entire all-India turnover instead of limiting the assessment to turnover attributable to the State concerned, which was viewed as requiring detailed judicial scrutiny.
➡️ The Revenue sought additional time to obtain instructions and respond to the objections raised by the assessee regarding the scope of taxable turnover and the alleged defects in the assessment process.
➡️ Considering the seriousness of the jurisdictional and computation issues involved, the High Court directed that no coercive recovery action be taken against the assessee until further hearing and listed the matter for consideration after the summer vacation.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – Real Security Services vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors [WRIT PETITION NO: 8929 OF 2026]
🔥📛 Madras HC to examine denial of TDS cash-refund sans verification; Stays recovery against Reliance Infrastructure
➡️ In a writ petition challenging an appellate order, the Madras High Court stayed recovery proceedings arising from reversal of a cash refund granted to Reliance Infrastructure Limited for amounts lying in its electronic cash ledger, including TDS credits under Section 51 of the CGST Act.
➡️ The Assessee argued that contractees had wrongly deducted TDS at 1% on the entire contract value instead of only on the taxable component, resulting in excess credits in the electronic cash ledger, and contended that such surplus amounts were refundable in cash under Sections 49(6) and 54 since the underlying GST liabilities had already been discharged.
➡️ The Assessee further contended that the appellate authority mechanically reversed the refund on the assumption that the original authority had not examined unjust enrichment and relevant circulars, without independently verifying records, and also wrongly invoked Section 74 despite absence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression.
➡️ During the hearing, the High Court examined whether the TDS amounts could have been utilized for payment of tax liabilities, to which the Assessee submitted that sufficient input tax credit was already available for discharge of output tax, making the TDS balance excess and legitimately refundable under the statutory framework governing electronic cash ledger balances.
➡️ The Revenue argued that the Assessee had an alternate remedy before the GST Tribunal, whereas the Assessee maintained that the appellate order suffered from clear non-application of mind; considering the rival submissions, the High Court directed the Revenue to file a counter-affidavit and adjourned the matter for further hearing.
✔️ Madras HC – RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VS THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 4 OTHERS.
🔥📛 HC: Orders passed on due-date for filing reply without affording personal hearing, a mere ‘eyewash’
➡️ The Uttarakhand High Court set aside an assessment order passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act involving alleged wrongful availment of ITC of approximately Rs. 8.49 crore, holding that the adjudication process violated the principles of natural justice embodied in Section 75(4) of the Act.
➡️ The assessee argued that although a specific request for personal hearing was made in response to the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority passed the order on the very same day the reply was filed, without communicating any separate hearing date or granting an effective opportunity of oral hearing.
➡️ The Revenue contended that the assessee’s reply had been considered and that an opportunity of hearing was granted; however, it admitted before the Court that no prior intimation or notice specifying the date and time of personal hearing had been issued to the taxpayer.
➡️ The High Court held that a mere statement in the adjudication order that a hearing opportunity was provided does not satisfy the mandatory requirement under Section 75(4), and observed that failure to issue advance notice of hearing renders the process illusory and contrary to fair adjudication standards.
➡️ The Court further observed that a taxpayer cannot be presumed to be ready for oral arguments on a date fixed only for filing a written reply, especially when the show cause notice did not indicate that hearing would also take place on the same day; accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 was quashed for breach of natural justice.
✔️ Uttarakhand HC – Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner & Anr. [Writ Petition (M/B) No. 286 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: No statutory bar on subsequent refund claims for same period arising from inadvertent omissions
➡️ The Bombay High Court held that a second refund application under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act is maintainable where certain invoices were inadvertently omitted from the first refund claim, provided the subsequent application is filed within the prescribed limitation period.
➡️ The refund claim of approximately Rs. 1.10 crore for August 2022 was earlier rejected on the ground that the assessee had already obtained refund for the broader July–September 2022 period; however, the Court held that Section 54(1) does not prohibit filing multiple refund applications for overlapping or distinct periods.
➡️ The Court observed that once the statutory time limit under Section 54(1) is satisfied, procedural or technical objections cannot defeat a substantive refund claim, especially when the omission arose from inadvertence or clerical lapse rather than any attempt at duplication or misuse.
➡️ Rejecting the department’s approach, the High Court clarified that principles of res judicata or analogous concepts cannot be imported into GST refund proceedings for distinct refund claims, as doing so would create an artificial restriction not contemplated under the statute and would frustrate the objective of granting legitimate refunds.
➡️ The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Shri Renuka Sugars, which permitted a second refund application to rectify arithmetical mistakes in the original claim, and noted that the same principle was affirmed in Rika Global Impex after dismissal of the Revenue’s SLP by the Supreme Court; accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, CGST for fresh adjudication on merits, with all issues including interest kept open.
✔️ Bombay HC – Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 14685 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Affiliation fees collected by Mumbai University in discharging statutory functions, not a “supply”; Quashes demand
➡️ The Bombay High Court quashed the GST demand of approximately Rs. 16.90 crore raised on the University of Mumbai under Section 74 of the CGST/MGST Acts for FY 2017–18 to 2022–23 on affiliation fees collected from colleges, holding that the levy was without authority of law and that the show cause notice itself lacked jurisdiction.
➡️ The Court held that grant of affiliation by a university is a statutory regulatory function under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, involving inspection of infrastructure, laboratories, land, buildings, and academic facilities, and such activities are carried out within the statutory framework for maintaining educational standards and not for profit or commercial purposes.
➡️ Interpreting Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, the Court ruled that affiliation fees cannot be treated as “consideration” for a “supply” of services in the course or furtherance of business, observing that the expressions “supply” and “furtherance of business” must be read contextually with commercial transactions such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease, or disposal, which were absent in the present case.
➡️ Rejecting the Revenue’s reliance on the broad definition of “business” under Section 2(17), the Court clarified that merely collecting statutory fees does not convert a university’s educational and regulatory functions into business activities, and treating affiliation as a taxable commercial service would defeat the object and intent of the university legislation and lead to an absurd interpretation of law.
➡️ While the assessee had also relied on exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) and challenged CBIC circulars, the Court granted relief primarily on first principles and statutory interpretation, relying on precedents including Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Goa University, and Rajasthan Technical University, and reiterated that executive circulars cannot override the provisions and intent of the statute.
✔️ Bombay HC – University of Mumbai vs. Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 4389 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to conduct roving inquiry under MVAT-Act while denying transitional-credit
➡️ The Bombay High Court examined a dispute where transitional credit claimed through TRAN-1 under Section 140 of the CGST/MGST Acts was partly denied by the appellate authority on the basis of a system-generated mismatch pertaining to the earlier MVAT regime.
➡️ The assessee had asserted that it was a registered dealer eligible for transitional credit and had also filed an affidavit confirming that no refund under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2005 had been claimed or would be claimed in respect of the same amount.
➡️ While partly allowing the appeal, the appellate authority reduced the admissible transitional credit by about Rs. 6.53 lakhs solely on account of MVAT mismatch issues and consequently upheld related tax, interest, and penalty demands against the assessee.
➡️ The High Court accepted the assessee’s contention that proceedings under Section 140 are limited to examining eligibility for transitional credit and cannot be expanded to adjudicate disputes relating to MVAT assessments or system-generated mismatches arising under the earlier VAT regime.
➡️ Observing that the appellate authority’s findings were vague, unclear, and beyond jurisdiction, the High Court quashed the impugned demand order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication confined strictly to transitional credit provisions, after granting proper opportunity of hearing and keeping all issues open.
✔️ Bombay HC – Gunjan Surgical and Scientific Co. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 1745 OF 2024]
🔥📛 HC: ITC blocking invalid once GST dues extinguished under approved Resolution Plan
➡️ The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), any claim not submitted by the State before such approval stands extinguished and cannot subsequently be enforced through GST proceedings.
➡️ The Court noted that the assessee’s Resolution Plan had attained finality after approval by the NCLT, while the State failed to lodge its claim or obtain adjudication of its alleged dues during the insolvency process.
➡️ It was further recorded that the State’s attempt to recall the NCLT approval order was rejected, and its challenges before the NCLAT and the Supreme Court were also dismissed, making the Resolution Plan binding on all stakeholders.
➡️ In view of the finality of the approved Resolution Plan, the High Court held that the Revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to continue with the earlier GST show cause notice or to block Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately Rs. 4.27 crore, as such actions effectively sought revival of extinguished claims.
➡️ Accordingly, the High Court quashed the GST notice and directed the authorities to unblock and release the admissible ITC amount within two months, while clarifying that the State may still initiate recovery proceedings in accordance with law if any independent and legally sustainable remedy remains available.
✔️ Himachal Pradesh HC – Radiant Castings Private Limited Vs. Joint Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise & Anr. [CWP No. 484 of 2024]
🔥📛 HC: Quashes State GST order citing prior CGST proceedings on overlapping entities
➡️ The Delhi High Court held that State GST proceedings could not continue where the Central Goods and Services Tax authority had already issued an earlier SCN covering substantially overlapping entities, reaffirming that parallel proceedings on the same subject matter are impermissible under Section 6 of the GST law.
➡️ The Court noted that the CGST SCN dated June 28, 2025 covered 17 entities, while the State GST SCN issued later on July 2, 2025 involved 9 entities already included in the earlier central proceedings, and this factual overlap was undisputed by the authorities.
➡️ The assessee had specifically informed the State GST authority through a communication dated July 22, 2025 about the pendency of the earlier CGST proceedings, yet the State authority proceeded without examining or addressing the statutory restriction against duplicate adjudication.
➡️ The High Court emphasized that all relevant records and proceedings were available on the common GST portal accessible to both Central and State authorities, and therefore the State authority was duty-bound to verify the existing material before initiating or continuing separate proceedings.
➡️ Holding that the failure to consider the prior CGST action and statutory bar rendered the State GST order legally unsustainable, the Court quashed the impugned order, directed the State SCN to remain in abeyance, and instructed the CGST authority to complete adjudication within four months, after which the State authority may act further in accordance with Section 6 of the GST Act.
✔️ Delhi HC – Maa Jagdambe Engineering Works Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes & Ors. [W.P.(C) 3635/2026 & CM APPL. 17745/2026]
