[CLSTR]
< Back to situation

[REVISION HISTORY]

Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation

Updated 4 times since CLSTR started tracking revisions of this situation.

What changed

2026-09-19 11:17 UTC → 2026-09-20 08:13 UTC · added removed

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. 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. Further developments in High Court jurisprudence have addressed Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility and appeal procedures. 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), allowing businesses to claim credit for such properties. Meanwhile, 17(5)(d). Newer developments include the Telangana Sikkim High Court granted relief setting aside an order denying budgetary support to Karthikeya Construction, permitting Cipla Ltd, ruling that authorities must consider Chartered Accountant certificates regarding ITC utilization. In Gujarat, the company 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 pay the required 10% pre-deposit government for a statutory appeal using funds from a bank account purchaser to claim ITC, while clarifying that had been under attachment. New Supreme Court decisions have addressed supplier-side defaults. In Bhandari Scrap Traders v. fraud-related recovery provisions require proof of willful misstatement or suppression by the buyer.

Versions

  1. 2026-09-20 08:13 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  2. 2026-09-19 11:17 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  3. 2026-09-17 20:02 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  4. 2026-09-17 11:35 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  5. 2026-09-13 07:13 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation

Only revisions since CLSTR began indexing content versions appear here. Select a version to see what changed compared to the one before it.