No 10% Penalty Pre-Deposit for Pre-2025 GST SCN
Delhi HC ruled that pre-1 October 2025 GST appeals follow old law; 10% pre-deposit of disputed penalty cannot be mandated.
Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
Delhi HC ruled that pre-1 October 2025 GST appeals follow old law; 10% pre-deposit of disputed penalty cannot be mandated.
GSTAT Ernakulam held GST detention order void for breaching seven-day timeline under Section 129(3) for issuing demand after vehicle seizure.
GSTAT Lucknow held that a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A alone cannot disallow ITC; physical verification and supplier evidence must be considered.
Calcutta HC set aside GST cancellation, allowing revival of registration upon filing of pending returns with dues paid within six weeks.
Gujarat High Court granted regular bail in an e-way bill forgery case, subject to deposit of ₹29.30 lakh as tax and compliance with standard conditions.
GSTAT Ernakulam set aside a Section 129(3) penalty order served 28 days after notice, holding it void ab initio for violating the seven-day timeline under Rule 161 of CGST Rules.
GSTAT Hyderabad ruled that meals supplied by third-party caterers to hospitals are taxable under GST, as they don’t qualify as part of healthcare services under Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
GSTAT Hyderabad ruled that once the GST Department restores a taxpayer's registration, its appeal against cancellation becomes infructuous. This bars the Revenue from pursuing contradictory litigation.
The Karnataka High Court condoned delay in a GST appeal on medical grounds, restored the appeal, and directed the tribunal to hear it on merits. The decision emphasizes judicial discretion in condoning laches for genuine hardship.
NCLT approves amalgamation of Mawana Foods with Mawana Sugars effective April 1, 2026, preserving tax and regulatory benefits.

ITAT holds cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be added under Section 68 if sourced from disclosed and taxed cash sales with supporting records.

ITAT holds Toyota Tsusho lacked permanent establishment in India as supervisory activities fell short of six-month threshold under India-Japan DTAA Article 5(4).