Monitor this situation.
Unsubscribe anytime.
[SITUATION] · [ACTIVE] · [BUSINESS]
5 clusters · 7 sources · 10 days · First seen · Last updated
Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
Overview
Indian judicial authorities have issued several rulings regarding the application of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The Supreme Court clarified that tax departments cannot invoke the extended limitation period under Section 74 based solely on terms like “fraud” or “wilful misstatement”. The Court held that show-cause notices must disclose specific material facts and circumstances, noting that a “bland statement” lacking factual evidence is insufficient. Additionally, the GSTAT Kolkata Bench ruled that certain amendments to Rule 43 regarding Duty Credit Scrips apply prospectively rather than retrospectively.
Recent rulings have further clarified procedural requirements and Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility. The Delhi High Court determined that amended pre-deposit requirements from Notification No. 16/2025-Central Tax do not apply to appeals from proceedings initiated before October 1, 2025. Regarding the service of orders, the Allahabad High Court ruled in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh that uploading an adjudication order to the GST portal or sending an email alert does not satisfy the deeming provisions of Section 169 for completed service. The Madras High Court, in ESNP Property Builder and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State Tax Officer, ruled that construction intended for leasing or licensing does not constitute construction ‘on own account’ under Section 17(5)(d).
Newer developments include the Sikkim High Court setting aside an order denying budgetary support to Cipla Ltd, ruling that authorities must consider Chartered Accountant certificates regarding ITC utilization. In Gujarat, the High Court held that blocking ITC under Section 17(5) does not apply when no taxable supply exists, such as in certain leasehold acquisitions. Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld that tax must actually be paid to the government for a purchaser to claim ITC, while clarifying that fraud-related recovery provisions require proof of willful misstatement or suppression by the buyer.
Entities
Supreme Court of India · Director General of Analytics and Risk Management · Allahabad High Court · M/s Power Tech Global Private Limited · Bambino Agro Industries Ltd.
Timeline
-
3 days ago
[BUSINESS] 2 sourcesIndian courts issue rulings on GST Input Tax Credit eligibilityIndian courts and tax authorities have issued several rulings clarifying GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility, covering topics from leasehold rights and land surveys to supplier-side tax defaults.
-
5 days ago
[BUSINESS] 2 sourcesIndia CGST Act: Legal rulings clarify service of orders and appeal proceduresIndian courts and the GSTAT have clarified CGST Act procedures, ruling that portal uploads may not constitute legal service and that tribunal appeals require a prior order from the First Appellate Authority.
-
6 days ago
[BUSINESS] 2 sourcesIndian High Courts issue rulings on GST credit and tax appealsIndian High Courts have provided key guidance on GST, with the Madras High Court ruling on ITC for leased properties and the Telangana High Court allowing tax pre-deposits from attached bank accounts.
-
10 days ago
[BUSINESS] 5 sourcesDelhi High Court rules on CGST Section 107 pre-deposit lawsThe Delhi High Court ruled that amended Section 107 pre-deposit requirements for CGST appeals do not apply to proceedings initiated before October 1, 2025.
-
12 days ago
[BUSINESS] 2 sourcesIndian courts clarify Section 74 CGST Act requirementsIndian courts and the GSTAT have clarified that Section 74 of the CGST Act requires specific factual disclosure of fraud or suppression to be valid, rather than mere statutory terminology.
Sources
amlegals.com · caclubindia.com · desitalkchicago.com · newsable.asianetnews.com · taxguru.in · taxscan.in · thecsrjournal.in
This summary has been updated 4 times: see revision history