Gist of GST Articles
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Hiveloop Technology Private Limited held that an e-commerce operator who does not collect consideration for supplies made through its platform is not liable to collect TCS under Section 52, and consequently, invocation of Section 74 against such operator is without jurisdiction.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hemang Bipin Varaiya held that negative blocking of ITC under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 is not permissible as the Rule mandates ‘the existence of available credit in the ECL.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Maruti Enterprise upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and declined to read it down, holding that the condition of actual payment of tax to the Government is integral to the statutory ITC chain and that the purchaser carries the burden of proving eligibility.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd held that consolidation of multiple financial years in a single Show Cause Notice (SCN) and adjudication order is permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, even in cases not involving fraudulent Input Tax Credit, and declined interference in writ jurisdiction in view of the availability of an alternate appellate remedy.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (Division Bench) in The Commissioner of Central Tax allowed the intra-court appeals filed by the Revenue, setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge ..
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Shashi Kumar Choudhury held that a show-cause notice proposing cancellation of GST registration which merely reproduces statutory provisions without disclosing the tax period, ..
The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in the case of Bharat Oil Traders held that amendment to Explanation (2)(e) Section 54 CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. February 1, 2019 substituting “relevant date” for unutilized ITC refund u/s 54(3)(ii) inverted duty structure from “end of financial year in which claim arises” to “due date for furnishing return u/s 39 for period claim arises” operates prospectively and cannot retrospectively divest vested rights accrued pre-amendment.
The honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries between Customs authorities and GST officers in matters relating to Integrated GST (IGST) on imports.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Amit Manilal Haria & Ors. held that penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act cannot be imposed on company employees
The Bombay High Court, by its judgment pronounced on 27th April, 2026 in University of Bombay vs Union of India held that the collection of affiliation fees by the University does not attract the levy of GST since the activities of the University relating to the affiliation do not constitute ‘supply’ in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.
