Stay updated
The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Hindustan Construction Company Limited held that the matter required reconsideration on factual and legal aspects and remitted it to the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, Dharamshala, directing a fresh decision by September 30, 2025, after affording opportunity of hearing.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in DYS Impex Private Limited held that refund denial based on Section 16(4) of the CGST/ WBGST Act could not be sustained in light of the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5), which extended the timeline for availing input tax credit (ITC) for initial 4 FYs, starting from 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to November 30, 2021.
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Paper Trade Links v. Union of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance…
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited held that dismissal of a rectification application under Section 161 of the TNGST Act does not attract the requirement of natural justice under the third proviso, as refusal to rectify is not “rectification” within the meaning of the statute.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puneet Batra held that any search and seizure conducted at an advocate’s office must be justified by prima facie material showing the advocate’s involvement in alleged illegality, and attorney-client privilege must be respected.
Article, GST Article, High Court
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in R V Enterprises & Anr held that ITC is liable to be reversed under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act where the supplier has not discharged output tax liability, and the purchaser fails to furnish evidence of genuine movement of goods and supporting documentation.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Reliance Formulation Private Limited held that recovery of interest on self-assessed tax under Section 50(1) of the GST Act can be initiated only after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 142B and issuance of intimation in Form GST DRC-01D.
The Delhi High Court, in the case of GS Marbles held that the statutory bar on filing a written statement beyond the period of 120 days under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is absolute and non-negotiable, and the Trial Court is precluded from taking such a written statement on record thereafter.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vilas Prabhakar Lad held that GST authorities must delete the Aadhaar and PAN linked to the Petitioner’s name from the portal as the registration was fraudulently obtained and expressed deep displeasure at the systemic failure across statutory authorities to act upon clear evidence of impersonation and fraud.