[CLSTR]
API
< Back to situation

[REVISION HISTORY]

Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation

17 recorded revisions of this situation.

What changed

2026-11-04 07:17 UTC → 2026-11-04 16:21 UTC · added removed

Indian judicial authorities and the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) continue to issue rulings regarding the application of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The Supreme Court previously clarified that tax departments cannot invoke the extended limitation period under Section 74 based solely on terms like “fraud” or “wilful misstatement”, noting that show-cause notices must disclose specific material facts. Recent rulings have focused on procedural limitations and limitations, Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility. eligibility, and arrest protocols. Expanding on procedural matters, the Delhi High Court ruled that the dates on electronic forms DRC-01 and DRC-07 do not determine the limitation period under the CGST Act, 2017, as these forms are consequential to substantive show-cause notices and adjudication orders. Regarding amnesty, the Gujarat High Court ruled that authorities cannot deny benefits under Section 128A if payments were previously adjusted through Form GST DRC-03A, even if clerical errors occurred. The Karnataka High Court held that appellate orders must include reasoned findings under Section 107(12) and cannot be dismissed solely for non-appearance. GSTAT has issued several decisions on ITC. The Thiruvananthapuram Bench accepted an ITC claim despite GSTR-2A mismatches caused by suppliers incorrectly reporting B2B transactions as B2C, provided tax payments were verified. The Hyderabad Bench ruled that the absence of a Chartered Accountant certificate cannot be the sole ground to deny ITC. Additionally, the Delhi Bench of the GSTAT determined a refund claim was within the legal limitation period due to COVID-19 related extensions. In a recent ruling regarding enforcement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that arrests under Section 69 of the CGST Act are illegal if the mandatory “reasons to believe” are recorded by an investigating officer instead of the Commissioner.

Versions

  1. 2026-11-04 16:21 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  2. 2026-11-04 07:17 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  3. 2026-11-03 08:22 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  4. 2026-11-01 19:02 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  5. 2026-10-31 05:13 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  6. 2026-10-28 22:01 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  7. 2026-10-27 11:45 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  8. 2026-10-23 12:22 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  9. 2026-10-19 10:13 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  10. 2026-10-16 11:28 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  11. 2026-10-10 12:09 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  12. 2026-10-05 05:42 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  13. 2026-09-28 11:41 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  14. 2026-09-20 08:13 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  15. 2026-09-19 11:17 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  16. 2026-09-17 20:02 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  17. 2026-09-17 11:35 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation
  18. 2026-09-13 07:13 UTC Indian judicial rulings on CGST Act implementation

Select a version to see what changed compared to the one before it.