![GST Tribunal Imposes ₹10,000 Penalty After Taxpayer Files Returns And Pays Tax But Leaves Interest And Late Fee Unpaid. Md Qamaruddin Khan vs SRI UMAMAHESHWARA INFRATECH. GSTAT - ['Hyderabad']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/gst-tribunal-imposes-10-000-penalty-after-taxpayer-files-returns-and-pays-tax-but-leaves-i-da7544a5092c4d349d9c4dea99980e2a.webp)
GSTAT - ['Hyderabad']
LEGAL SUBJECT
Tax Law
Judgment analyses where this is the main or secondary subject.Latest analyses
30 ARTICLES![GSTAT Upholds Foundry’s ITC Reversal, Saying Its Paper Trail Didn’t Prove Goods Came From a Supplier Found Non-Existent Three Months Later. PRAKASH IRON FOUNDRY vs Shri Prakash Yadav Joint Commissioner(IT) State Tax Headquarters Lucknow, Deputy Commissioner. GSTAT - ['Agra']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/gstat-upholds-foundrys-itc-reversal-saying-its-paper-trail-didnt-prove-goods-came-from-a-s-523e44a67ca6490eaf3ccbd633887a4f.webp)
GSTAT - ['Agra']
GSTAT Upholds Foundry’s ITC Reversal, Saying Its Paper Trail Didn’t Prove Goods Came From a Supplier Found Non-Existent Three Months Later
The taxpayer appealed against the first appellate authority’s order dated 24.04.2025, which had upheld an order-in-original dated 01.10.2022 imposing tax and penalty of ₹5,42,505, with applicable interest.2 MIN READ↗![Brush Maker’s GST Demand Stays At ₹97,610 As Agra GSTAT Rejects Department’s Bid To Restore ₹53.24 Lakh. JITENDRA KUMAR vs M/S NANDNEE PRODUCTS. GSTAT - ['Agra']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/brush-makers-gst-demand-stays-at-97-610-as-agra-gstat-rejects-departments-bid-to-restore-5-9c4818f60ffc445fbf3e185d2e2e386b.webp)
GSTAT - ['Agra']
Brush Maker’s GST Demand Stays At ₹97,610 As Agra GSTAT Rejects Department’s Bid To Restore ₹53.24 Lakh
The Department appealed under Section 112(3) of the CGST/SGST Act against the First Appellate Authority’s order dated 14 July 2025, which had substantially reduced a demand raised against Nandnee Products under Sectio...2 MIN READ↗![Garment Exporter’s ₹6.78-Lakh GST Refund Claim Survives Vague Memo As Delhi GSTAT Finds Feb 29, 2024 Deadline After COVID Limitation Pause. Pradip Kumar vs FALAK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED. GSTAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/garment-exporters-6-78-lakh-gst-refund-claim-survives-vague-memo-as-delhi-gstat-finds-feb-3226b13a978c4072838d9494a2663fb4.webp)
GSTAT - ['Delhi']
Garment Exporter’s ₹6.78-Lakh GST Refund Claim Survives Vague Memo As Delhi GSTAT Finds Feb 29, 2024 Deadline After COVID Limitation Pause
Falak Industries sought a refund of ₹6,78,822 for input tax credit accumulated on exports made during October–December 2021.3 MIN READ↗
Gauhati High Court
Daughter’s Rare Eye Treatment Helps Contractor Overcome 40-Day GST Appeal Delay; Gauhati HC Orders Merits Hearing
The petitioner, a registered GST taxpayer engaged in civil-contract work, challenged an order rejecting his appeal against a tax demand of Rs. 55,78,250.80 for FY 2023–24.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka HC Quashes Reopening Of Previously Scrutinised ₹2.24-Crore Section 54F Claim, Applying Revenue’s AY 2015-16 Concession
The assessee filed his return for AY 2015–16, declaring long-term capital gains and claiming an exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Dell India Keeps Transfer-Pricing Relief as Karnataka HC Upholds Comparable Exclusions and Working-Capital Treatment of AE Advances for Future Services
The Revenue appealed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the ITAT’s order concerning the respondent’s assessment for AY 2006–07.3 MIN READ↗
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan HC Upholds Tax on Manufacturers’ Factory Stock, Even If Vehicles Never Use State Roads
The petitioners, manufacturers of motor vehicles in Rajasthan, challenged assessments and demand notices imposing tax under Section 4(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, on vehicles held at their...3 MIN READ↗
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan HC Upholds Tax on Vehicle Makers’ Factory Stock Without Requiring Proof They Used State Roads
The petitioners, including Honda and Hero MotoCorp, challenged demands under Section 4(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, and the notification dated 31 March 2000.4 MIN READ↗
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan HC Upholds Tax on Car and Bike Makers’ Factory Stock in Rajasthan, Even Without Road Use
The petitioners, vehicle manufacturers operating factories in Rajasthan, challenged assessments and demand notices under Section 4(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, for vehicles held at their f...4 MIN READ↗
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan HC Upholds Tax On Manufacturers’ Vehicles Stocked In Rajasthan, Even If They Never Use State Roads
The petitioners manufactured motor vehicles at factories in Rajasthan and held finished, unregistered vehicles at their premises pending despatch.4 MIN READ↗![Babu Lime’s Chuna Classified as Slaked Lime at 5%, Not Food Preparation at 18%, GST Tribunal Holds. Nikhil Anantbhai Ruparelia vs BABU LIME PVT LTD. GSTAT - ['Rajkot']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/babu-limes-chuna-classified-as-slaked-lime-at-5-not-food-preparation-at-18-gst-tribunal-ho-71e7c683ea32418480f65cf36794ff66.webp)
GSTAT - ['Rajkot']
Babu Lime’s Chuna Classified as Slaked Lime at 5%, Not Food Preparation at 18%, GST Tribunal Holds
The respondent manufactured and supplied chuna in slurry and paste forms, made by physically mixing purchased slaked lime with water and calcium carbonate; the slurry also contained a small quantity of glycerin. It cl...3 MIN READ↗![Reliance SEZ Unit Can Claim Refund Of Unused GST Credit Distributed By ISD, Tribunal Upholds Refund Orders. Himanshu Garg vs Nikhil Rasiklal Meswani. GSTAT - ['Rajkot']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/reliance-sez-unit-can-claim-refund-of-unused-gst-credit-distributed-by-isd-tribunal-uphold-a5c49fc49599407cb137fa4ae0da8dfa.webp)
GSTAT - ['Rajkot']
Reliance SEZ Unit Can Claim Refund Of Unused GST Credit Distributed By ISD, Tribunal Upholds Refund Orders
Reliance Industries Ltd., an SEZ unit, sought refunds of balances of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) in its electronic credit ledger.3 MIN READ↗
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan HC Quashes Reassessment Notice After Settlement Commission Order, Says Revenue May Proceed Under Section 245D(6)
The petitioners challenged notices dated 28 March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2014–15.2 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Delhi HC Upholds Reopening Over Search Evidence Of Accommodation Entries, Remands Pramod Gupta’s ₹58.87 Lakh Tax Addition To ITAT for Reassessment Of The Amount
A search at the premises of Pradeep Kumar Jindal on 18 November 2015 reportedly uncovered material indicating that he arranged accommodation entries through front companies.2 MIN READ↗
Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP HC Leaves ₹23.78 Lakh GST Credit Block In Place, Says Aluminium Firm Can Appeal ₹1.78 Crore ITC Demand
The petitioner, a registered aluminium-products business, challenged the State GST authorities’ decision dated 10 March 2026 to block ₹23,78,030 in its Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under Rule 86A.3 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
After Accidents Hospitalise Proprietor And Brother, Karnataka HC Gives Bengaluru Trader Another Chance To Contest Ex-Parte GST Assessment Despite Late Appeal
The petitioner challenged an ex parte adjudication order under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act for FY 2019–20 and an appellate order dismissing its statutory appeal as time-barred.2 MIN READ↗
Patna High Court
Despite Bihar Settlement Act’s Expiry, Amara Raja Can Secure Tax Settlement By Paying Entry-Tax Set-Off Shortfall Within 2 Weeks: Patna HC
The petitioner, a battery manufacturer, sought settlement under the Bihar Settlement of Taxation Disputes Act, 2024, of disputes for five tax periods: 2007–08, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2017–18.3 MIN READ↗![Union Bank’s ₹1.35-Crore GST Refund Claim Survives Only For February 2018, As GSTAT Applies COVID Limitation Exclusion. VISHAL CHAUDHARY vs UNION BANK OF INDIA. GSTAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/union-banks-1-35-crore-gst-refund-claim-survives-only-for-february-2018-as-gstat-applies-c-5eeeb5236bae44cca467001b37d17567.webp)
GSTAT - ['Delhi']
Union Bank’s ₹1.35-Crore GST Refund Claim Survives Only For February 2018, As GSTAT Applies COVID Limitation Exclusion
Union Bank of India filed a refund application on 6 May 2020 for ₹1,35,34,594, described as excess tax paid for March 2018.3 MIN READ↗![GST Tribunal Remands ₹47.43 Lakh Rule 42 ITC Issue for Fresh Decision, Upholds ₹1.78 Lakh Demand Against Dealer. ANANT RAM vs M/S SHYAM LAL SHRI NARAIN. GSTAT - ['Lucknow']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/gst-tribunal-remands-47-43-lakh-rule-42-itc-issue-for-fresh-decision-upholds-1-78-lakh-dem-8bd7bbb1cd80494b85ec1b1b5c5a7fd1.webp)
GSTAT - ['Lucknow']
GST Tribunal Remands ₹47.43 Lakh Rule 42 ITC Issue for Fresh Decision, Upholds ₹1.78 Lakh Demand Against Dealer
The Revenue challenged the First Appellate Authority’s order dated 18 December 2024 concerning the respondent’s input tax credit (ITC) for FY 2019–20.2 MIN READ↗![GST Tribunal Upholds Dealer’s ₹36.35 Lakh Transitional Credit Despite Wrong TRAN-1 Table, As The Demand Notice Never Disputed Section 140(3) Eligibility. ATANU MONDAL vs STORES & SPARES CO.. GSTAT - ['Kolkata']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/gst-tribunal-upholds-dealers-36-35-lakh-transitional-credit-despite-wrong-tran-1-table-as-e6a3c0c3cf394e098d2cc85dc577c4b6.webp)
GSTAT - ['Kolkata']
GST Tribunal Upholds Dealer’s ₹36.35 Lakh Transitional Credit Despite Wrong TRAN-1 Table, As The Demand Notice Never Disputed Section 140(3) Eligibility
The taxpayer, a registered dealer, claimed transitional CGST credit of ₹36,35,704 under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, but entered the claim in Table 5(a) of Form GST TRAN-1, prescribed for credit under Section...3 MIN READ↗![Maithan Steel Wins Appeal Against ₹13.17 Lakh Transitional-Credit Demand as GSTAT Says Section 73 Cannot Decide Pre-GST CENVAT Eligibility. MAITHAN STEEL AND POWER LIMITED vs Satyajit Singh, Sanjay Bangartale. GSTAT - ['Kolkata']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/maithan-steel-wins-appeal-against-13-17-lakh-transitional-credit-demand-as-gstat-says-sect-2049f77986eb4f068e8eef120617e846.webp)
GSTAT - ['Kolkata']
Maithan Steel Wins Appeal Against ₹13.17 Lakh Transitional-Credit Demand as GSTAT Says Section 73 Cannot Decide Pre-GST CENVAT Eligibility
The appellant transitioned CENVAT credit into GST through Form TRAN-1.2 MIN READ↗![Trader’s IGST Credit Mistakenly Availed As CGST/SGST: Kolkata GST Tribunal Sets Aside Order, Remands Appeal For Reconsideration. A TO Z CHEMICALS vs SATARUPA DE, KRISHNA GOPAL SAHA, Office of the Commissioner State Tax. GSTAT - ['Kolkata']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/traders-igst-credit-mistakenly-availed-as-cgst-sgst-kolkata-gst-tribunal-sets-aside-order-c424a6e983134d4a9956028a0559561c.webp)
GSTAT - ['Kolkata']
Trader’s IGST Credit Mistakenly Availed As CGST/SGST: Kolkata GST Tribunal Sets Aside Order, Remands Appeal For Reconsideration
The taxpayer, a chemicals trader, was assessed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 for, among other matters, availing and utilising ₹1,43,403.74 each as CGST and WBGST credit instead of claiming the corresponding c...2 MIN READ↗![After Jay Jay Bricks Failed To Produce Stock Books For 5,66,500 Bricks, GSTAT Sends Penalty Dispute Back For Fresh Review. Vishal Singh vs JAY JAY BRICKS. GSTAT - ['Lucknow']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/after-jay-jay-bricks-failed-to-produce-stock-books-for-5-66-500-bricks-gstat-sends-penalty-a9dbc8a9e0074385a31212c6a42b1f84.webp)
GSTAT - ['Lucknow']
After Jay Jay Bricks Failed To Produce Stock Books For 5,66,500 Bricks, GSTAT Sends Penalty Dispute Back For Fresh Review
The dispute arose from an SIB inspection on 16.04.2025 at Jay Jay Bricks’ premises, where 5,66,500 bricks valued at Rs. 22,25,798 were found.2 MIN READ↗![Kolkata GST Tribunal Sends Leather Firm’s ₹9.06 Lakh Refund Claim Back For Reconciliation After SEZ Supplies Went Unreported. SUBHAJIT LEATHER WORKS vs KAMAL PUGGAL, Sanjay Bangartale. GSTAT - ['Kolkata']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/kolkata-gst-tribunal-sends-leather-firms-9-06-lakh-refund-claim-back-for-reconciliation-af-625bb6bafaff49d1ad7f733c55594541.webp)
GSTAT - ['Kolkata']
Kolkata GST Tribunal Sends Leather Firm’s ₹9.06 Lakh Refund Claim Back For Reconciliation After SEZ Supplies Went Unreported
The appellant sought a refund of ₹9,06,045 in unutilised input tax credit for April 2021 to March 2022, claiming that the amount related to zero-rated supplies to an SEZ unit or developer without payment of tax.2 MIN READ↗![No Incriminating Evidence: GSTAT Quashes Section 74 Action Against Bengal Supplier, Bars 2017-18 Action And Remands Later Years Under Section 73. BENGAL SPARE PARTS SUPPLY vs M Rahaman, Sanjay Bangartale. GSTAT - ['Kolkata']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/no-incriminating-evidence-gstat-quashes-section-74-action-against-bengal-supplier-bars-201-baf0c3c28e394cbbb886cb7c58ba229b.webp)
GSTAT - ['Kolkata']
No Incriminating Evidence: GSTAT Quashes Section 74 Action Against Bengal Supplier, Bars 2017-18 Action And Remands Later Years Under Section 73
An audit of Bengal Spare Parts Supply for FY 2017–18 to 2019–20 identified alleged tax short-payments and other discrepancies. A show-cause notice was issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, and the adjudicating a...3 MIN READ↗![Kolkata GST Tribunal Upholds Refund Of ₹1.1 Lakh Service-Tax Appeal Deposit Paid Through DRC-03, Holding GST’s Two-Year Limit Inapplicable To This Refund. ATANU MONDAL vs JHAWAR SUPPLIERS. GSTAT - ['Kolkata']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/kolkata-gst-tribunal-upholds-refund-of-1-1-lakh-service-tax-appeal-deposit-paid-through-dr-d9bdf6d8f1f7463c833071ccc8a582fc.webp)
GSTAT - ['Kolkata']
Kolkata GST Tribunal Upholds Refund Of ₹1.1 Lakh Service-Tax Appeal Deposit Paid Through DRC-03, Holding GST’s Two-Year Limit Inapplicable To This Refund
Jhawar Suppliers’ service-tax demand for FY 2015–16 was appealed under the legacy tax regime.2 MIN READ↗
CESTAT
CESTAT Remands Construction Subcontractor’s Tax Case To Decide Whether On-Site Fabrication Was Manufacture; Any Demand Limited To Normal Period
The assessee company provided construction and works-contract activities as a subcontractor to SAIL and NTPC during 2010–11 to 2015–16. It did not register or pay service tax, contending that the main contractors had...3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Delhi HC Sets Aside ₹10 Lakh Penalty On Customs Agent In Firecracker Import Case, Citing No Independent Evidence And Denied Cross-Examination
The appellant, a Customs House Agent based in Ludhiana, was penalised ₹10 lakh under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly knowing of and facilitating the import of Chinese firecrackers concealed a...2 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Delhi HC Dismisses CGST Appeal Over Duty-Free Retailer’s ₹11.73-Crore Refund, Says Taxability Issue Is For Supreme Court
DIAL licensed airport space to the respondent for duty-free shops in return for fixed fees and a share of revenue.2 MIN READ↗No articles match these filters.