Stay updated
List of articles posted by experts on various topics
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shree Gurukrupa Tradelink Private Limited held that the option of “no personal hearing” exercised by the assessee cannot override the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the GST Act ..
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi granted bail to the appellant who had been incarcerated for over five years and nine months under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“the UAP Act”), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS Act”) read with Section …
Petitioner-assessee challenged departmental blocking of ITC in electronic credit ledger –
Read the notice and pay dues if legal or fight is not due..
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Equipment Craft v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [Writ Petition No. 1257 of 2026, order dated February 27, 2026] held that assignment of leasehold rights to a third party constitutes transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and does not qualify as a “supply of services” under the GST regime, thereby not liable to GST.
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abbott Heathcare Private Limited vs Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors [CWP 4495 of 2024, order dated April 02, 2026] held that a show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, lacking specific ‘details’ and basis for allegations, is vague, non-specific, and violates principles of natural justice, thereby rendering it liable to be quashed.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of NarasusSaarathy Enterprises Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise [W.P.No.6069 of 2025, order dated March 16, 2026] held that mere similarity in packaging, graphics, colour scheme, or mandatory statutory disclosures does not constitute a “brand name” for the purpose of denying GST exemption, and where the assessee has voluntarily foregone actionable claim over a brand name, exemption under Notification No. 2/2017–CT (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 cannot be denied.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Firmenich Aromatics Production India Pvt. Ltd. held that importers under CIF contracts are not liable to pay IGST/service tax on ocean freight under reverse charge, as they are neither recipient of such services and such levy violates the concept of composite supply under GST law.
Multiple High Courts across the country have now drawn a firm line against the practice of issuing composite or consolidated SCNs and assessment orders spanning multiple financial years / tax periods under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tvl. SAM Enterprises & Ors. dismissed the writ petitions filed by the assessee-entities engaged in alleged circular trading of medical equipment supplies, thereby upholding the penalty orders passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act.