LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 31.08.2026
🔥📛 HC: Quashes demand on excavated-soil barter where different valuation rules invoked in SCN and order without Assessee’s opportunity
➡️ Gujarat High Court held that an adjudication order cannot confirm GST demand on a valuation rule different from the one invoked in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond to the changed basis.
➡️ The SCN had proposed valuation under Rule 28(a) of the CGST Rules, whereas the adjudicating authority ultimately relied on Rule 27(c); the Court found that this shift caused “grave prejudice” because the taxpayer had defended only the valuation basis stated in the SCN.
➡️ The dispute concerned a construction-services provider alleged to have supplied excavated soil, valued at about ₹1.70 crore, in barter for services without issuing tax invoices, raising issues regarding the correct GST valuation mechanism for non-monetary consideration.
➡️ Although the adjudicating authority accepted that Rule 28(a) had been wrongly invoked, it proceeded under Rule 27(c) and confirmed tax of about ₹8.54 lakh, with interest and penalty increasing the total demand to approximately ₹47.87 lakh; the High Court held this approach unsustainable for breach of natural justice.
➡️ Since Revenue itself admitted that the valuation provision cited in the SCN was incorrect, the High Court quashed both the SCN and the adjudication order, while allowing Revenue to commence fresh proceedings through a properly framed SCN specifying the correct legal and valuation basis.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Raghuvir Developers and Builders vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST and CE [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10638 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Failure to file reply cannot extinguish right to personal hearing; Quashes adjudication order, remands matter
➡️ The Allahabad High Court set aside the Section 74 adjudication order for breach of the mandatory personal hearing requirement under Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act.
➡️ The Court held that natural justice under the GST law creates two independent procedural rights—submission of a written reply and an oral hearing—and failure to exercise one cannot justify denial of the other.
➡️ Although the Section 74 notice invited a written reply, the reminder notice showed “NA” against the date, time and venue of personal hearing, clearly establishing that no effective hearing opportunity was provided.
➡️ Even where the assessee fails to file a reply, Section 75(4) preserves the right to appear personally and explain why the proposed adverse findings or tax demands should not be confirmed; denial of this right is a material procedural defect affecting the adjudication.
➡️ Considering the violation to be apparent and fundamental, the High Court entertained the writ petition despite the alternative statutory remedy, quashed the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee two weeks to file a final reply followed by a personal hearing.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Ved Enterprises Vs State of U.P. & Anr. [WRIT TAX No. – 1003 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Period/ITC overlap insufficient for Section 6(2)(b) “same subject matter” test; Requires factual examination on appeal
➡️ The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the ₹4.8 crore GST demand for FYs 2018-19 to 2023-24 at the writ stage, holding that the plea under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act required a factual and legal comparison of the proceedings initiated by the State and Central GST authorities, which could appropriately be examined by the Appellate Authority.
➡️ The Court clarified that the expression “same subject matter” under Section 6(2)(b) cannot be established merely because both proceedings relate to ITC and cover an overlapping financial year. Determination requires comparison of the respective show-cause notices, allegations, basis and computation of ITC discrepancies, transactions involved, evidence relied upon and orders passed.
➡️ Although the State GST authorities had initiated proceedings for FY 2020-21 regarding excess ITC and later dropped them after considering the assessee’s reply, the Central GST proceedings covered a wider period and ultimately resulted in the disputed demand; therefore, overlap of FY 2020-21 alone did not establish that the Central proceedings were barred.
➡️ The High Court distinguished the Alliance Polychem ruling, where both proceedings concerned the same demand for ineligible ITC, observing that in the present case it was first necessary to determine whether the Central proceedings relating to FY 2020-21 were actually identical in subject matter to the earlier State proceedings.
➡️ The assessee had not raised the Section 6(2)(b) objection while responding to the Central GST show-cause notice and had participated in the adjudication without establishing resulting prejudice; treating these as relevant factors against writ interference, the Court permitted the assessee to raise the issue and all other grounds in statutory appeal, with the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
✔️ Delhi HC – Liberty General Insurance Limited vs The Additional Commissioner Of Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate & Anr [W.P.(C) 4526/2026 and CM APPL. 22031/2026]
🔥📛 HC: Quashes assessment order passed after registration cancellation, noting portal notices were inaccessible to Assessee
➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the GST assessment order, holding that assessment proceedings based solely on notices issued through the GST portal were unsustainable when the taxpayer’s GST registration had already been cancelled.
➡️ The taxpayer’s registration was cancelled on June 9, 2023 after it stopped business and failed to file returns; consequently, it had no effective portal access and remained unaware of the subsequent assessment proceedings.
➡️ The Court held that, since the registration stood cancelled when the assessment was finalised, portal-based service did not provide the taxpayer a proper opportunity to respond and therefore violated the principles of natural justice.
➡️ The taxpayer was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation, file the proposed returns and deposit the applicable tax dues by September 5, 2026; the authority was directed to decide the revocation application within 15 days.
➡️ Where online filing is not technically possible, the Court permitted manual filing, thereby ensuring that procedural or portal-access limitations do not prevent the taxpayer from complying with GST requirements and obtaining a fresh adjudication.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – Union Quality Plastics Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax & Anr. [WRIT PETITION Nos : 21875 and 21878 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Unsigned GST assessment orders lack legal efficacy; Quashes assessment orders, permits fresh proceedings upon 20% pre-deposit
➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed GST assessment orders for FYs 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2023-24 because the orders were unsigned, holding that such orders lack legal validity and cannot be enforced.
➡️ The assessee, a works contract service provider, argued that its GST compliance was handled by a Chartered Accountant, it was unaware of the proceedings, and no personal hearing was granted despite the requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST law.
➡️ The Revenue contended that statutory notices had been duly served, the assessee failed to respond, and the writ petition should not be entertained because an alternative appellate remedy was available.
➡️ The High Court declined to examine the merits of the tax dispute, finding that the writ petitions could be allowed solely because the assessment orders were unsigned, following its earlier ruling in SRK Enterprises that an unsigned assessment order must be set aside and adjudicated afresh.
➡️ The Court permitted the Revenue to undertake fresh assessments after issuing show-cause notices and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, subject to the assessee depositing 20% of the disputed tax for each assessment year within eight weeks.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – Madhura Meenakshi Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner ST & Anr. [WRIT PETITION NO: 20612/2026]
🔥📛 HC: Quashes assessment order passed within three months of SCN; Remands for fresh adjudication
➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the GST assessment order for FY 2021-22 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication because the order did not demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirement of providing adequate opportunities for personal hearing.
➡️ The assessee challenged the assessment on multiple grounds, including that the final order travelled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, was allegedly issued before expiry of the statutory time period under Sections 73(2) and 73(10), and was unsigned and issued without a DIN.
➡️ On the limitation-related objection, the High Court found that the assessment order had in fact been passed within three months from the date of the show-cause notice and therefore did not accept the assessee’s contention on this aspect.
➡️ The Court nevertheless found a procedural deficiency because the assessment order did not establish whether the assessee had been granted the required three opportunities of personal hearing, making it necessary to reconsider the matter after following due process.
➡️ The assessment order was therefore quashed with directions to pass a fresh order under Section 73 after giving the assessee proper opportunity of hearing, subject to the assessee depositing 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – Sujai Shipping and Logistics Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) & Ors [WRIT PETITION No: 20677 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Remands profiteering by real-estate cos. to GSTAT following Reckitt Benckiser ruling on flawed ITC-turnover methodology
➡️ The Bombay High Court quashed anti-profiteering orders passed against real estate companies and remanded the matters to GSTAT for fresh consideration, without expressing any view on the merits of the alleged profiteering.
➡️ The Court relied on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Reckitt Benckiser, which held that the conventional comparison of input tax credit-to-turnover ratios between pre-GST and post-GST periods was flawed for determining profiteering in the real estate sector.
➡️ Although the petitioners also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act and Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134, the Bombay High Court left these issues open because the vires challenge is pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
➡️ The Court noted that the Revenue had earlier sought transfer of similar constitutional challenges pending before various High Courts to the Supreme Court for consistent adjudication, but the present Bombay High Court petitions were not transferred; meanwhile, the Delhi High Court upheld Section 171 and the related Rules while separately faulting the profiteering computation methodology applied to real estate cases.
➡️ Since the Revenue had not challenged the Delhi High Court’s finding on the defective methodology and had accepted remand of the real estate matters, the Bombay High Court directed GSTAT to reconsider the cases afresh in light of that ruling, while leaving the constitutional questions to be governed by the Supreme Court’s eventual decision.
✔️ Bombay HC – Elante Properties Private Limited and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 5141 OF 2022]
🔥📛 HC: Reiteration of SCN reply in rectification application cannot reset appeal limitation from rejection date
➡️ The Madras High Court upheld appellate orders rejecting the assessee’s GST appeals as time-barred, holding that the limitation period under Section 107 must ordinarily be reckoned from communication of the original adjudication order and cannot be extended merely because a rectification application was subsequently filed and rejected.
➡️ Referring to its recent ruling in E2E Supply Chain Solutions Ltd. and Supreme Court decisions including M.P. Steel Corporation, Hongo India (P) Ltd. and The Property Company (P) Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda, the Court held that the principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can apply only when the statutory requirements of that provision are actually satisfied.
➡️ The Court noted that the appeals were filed even beyond the period that the appellate authority was empowered to condone, while the rectification applications merely repeated submissions already made in response to the show-cause notices; therefore, the rectification proceedings could not provide a basis for excluding time or restarting limitation.
➡️ The assessee argued that the original order treated supplies of about Rs.9.12 lakh as taxable, whereas the rectification order proceeded on the basis that they were exempt supplies, and therefore limitation should run from communication of the rectification order; the High Court rejected this contention and found no valid ground for treating the rectification order as the starting point for appeal limitation.
➡️ The Court declined to follow its earlier decision in SPK and Co., which had computed limitation from communication of the rectification order, observing that the ruling had not considered the language of Section 107 or relevant Supreme Court principles and therefore was not good law; however, the assessee was left free to challenge the original orders through any remedy otherwise available in law.
✔️ Madras HC – Star Blue Metal Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Abdul Wahab vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST – Appeals), State Taxes [WP Nos. 31621 and 31623 of 2026]
🔥📛 HC: Art. 226 not invocable “as matter of course” post-limitation; No separate SCN for retrospective cancellation
➡️ The Rajasthan High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot ordinarily be used to challenge an original GST order after the statutory appeal period, including the maximum condonable delay, has expired. Interference may still be possible in exceptional cases, such as breach of natural justice or an order passed without jurisdiction.
➡️ Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., the Court clarified that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised routinely to bypass the limitation period prescribed by the GST law. Entertaining delayed challenges as a normal course would defeat the legislative scheme governing statutory appeals.
➡️ The Court held that a separate show-cause notice is not required merely because GST registration is ultimately cancelled with retrospective effect. A notice issued under Section 29 identifying the taxpayer’s non-compliance, such as failure to file returns under Section 39, is sufficient; the notice need not specify the exact nature or extent of the final cancellation action.
➡️ The Court rejected the taxpayer’s plea that retrospective cancellation violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, noting that cancellation does not permanently prevent the taxpayer from carrying on business. The taxpayer may apply for fresh GST registration in accordance with law and continue business activities.
➡️ Referring to Supreme Court rulings including ONGC, Multi Trading Agencies and Singh Enterprises, the Court reiterated that statutory limitation cannot be made ineffective through routine writ intervention. It also declined to follow the Rajasthan High Court’s earlier decision in Molana Construction Company to the extent it permitted condonation beyond the statutory maximum period, and dismissed the petition because it was filed substantially late without any exceptional circumstances.
✔️ Rajasthan HC – Shrawan Singh Devda vs UOI & ors [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15910/2026]
🔥📛 HC: Assessee’s challenge to surviving demand cannot block refund of pre-deposit on dropped demand
➡️ Bombay High Court held that IBM India was entitled to a proportionate refund of the 10% pre-deposit attributable to the portion of tax demand deleted by the First Appellate Authority, since proceedings had attained finality to that extent.
➡️ The Court rejected Revenue’s argument that refund could be withheld merely because the assessee intended to challenge the surviving demand, clarifying that a proposed further appeal against the adverse portion does not affect the finality of the portion already decided in the assessee’s favour.
➡️ The original demand of ₹48.97 crore was reduced to ₹17.51 crore in first appeal, resulting in deletion of ₹31.46 crore, or about 64% of the demand; accordingly, the assessee became entitled to refund of the corresponding proportion of the statutory 10% pre-deposit.
➡️ Relying on earlier High Court decisions and CBIC Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18 November 2019, the Court held that pre-deposit under Section 107(6) is refundable to the extent appellate proceedings have attained finality, particularly where Revenue itself has not challenged the appellate order granting relief.
➡️ The Court observed that an appeal pre-deposit is in the nature of security and, once the related demand is set aside, the assessee acquires a statutory right to refund with applicable interest; continued retention by Revenue is unauthorized and contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution, warranting prompt processing of the refund.
✔️ Bombay HC – IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors [WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 38052 OF 2025]
