The inaugural volume brings together 20 GST appeal decisions and seven anti-profiteering matters. Its rulings address issues that affect taxpayers well beyond the individual appeals, including when a penalty can follow an e-way bill lapse, what the department must prove to invoke Section 74, and whether tax benefits must be passed on to homebuyers.

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has published the inaugural volume of its E-Journal, bringing together decisions from its Principal and regional benches. In the foreword, GSTAT President Dr. Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra describes the publication as a platform for wider access to Tribunal decisions and for tracking the development of GST jurisprudence.

Buy Now: E-Way Bill Judgements From 2020–2026 [Includes Orders of GSTAT]

The volume contains a nominal index, subject-wise summaries and the reported decisions. Several rulings clarify the limits of tax demands based on return mismatches or procedural lapses, while others underline that taxpayers must still establish eligibility for statutory benefits and exemptions.

Fraud Cannot Be Presumed from an ITC Dispute

A recurring question in the journal is when the department may use Section 74 of the CGST Act, which applies to cases involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax.

In Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Odisha, the Tribunal found that transactions recorded in debit and credit notes and supported by invoices had also been entered in the books. Their omission from periodical returns did not, by itself, establish the intent required for Section 74. The Tribunal also addressed the scope of a GSTAT appeal, holding that it can examine questions of fact.

In Santhome Latex Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST, the Tribunal similarly held that mere availment of ineligible ITC was insufficient to invoke Section 74 without evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. It noted that the taxpayer’s reconciliation was disclosed through annual return filings and available on the GST portal. A failure to answer an audit enquiry could not, without more, establish suppression; the department also could not rely on a new ground that was absent from the show-cause notice.

In Commissioner CGST & CX v. Power Tech Global Private Limited, the Tribunal rejected the use of Section 74 in the absence of material evidence of fraud or wilful suppression. It directed the proper officer to determine any liability under Section 73.

The practical distinction is significant: a disputed credit claim may still require examination, but the allegation of fraud needs its own evidentiary foundation.

ITC Claims Require Verification, Not Automatic Rejection

In N. R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, the Tribunal dealt with a difference between ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and credit appearing in GSTR-2A. It held that non-appearance in GSTR-2A could not simply be treated as a conclusive finding that the credit was inadmissible. The taxpayer’s explanation and supporting material required verification. The decision also set aside the adverse order because a personal hearing had not been provided, while clarifying that the absence of an ASMT-10 scrutiny notice did not itself invalidate proceedings initiated separately under Section 73.

In Lucknow Test House v. Additional Commissioner, the Tribunal considered credit reported under an incorrect tax head. It held that a reporting difference alone could not establish excess availment where the aggregate credit did not exceed the taxpayer’s eligible entitlement. The eligibility of the underlying credit and any actual excess benefit remained relevant.

The Kolkata Bench’s decision concerning Agarwala’s Bitumex Private Limited addressed exports through a bill-to-ship-to arrangement. The department had questioned the movement of goods because toll records did not show a particular route. The Tribunal noted the invoices, e-way bills, transport documents, bank payments, confirmed receipt at the ship-to point and verified exports. It held that toll-plaza receipts were not mandatory proof of movement in those circumstances. The journal also records the Tribunal’s view that the exporter’s ITC or refund could not be denied merely because registrations of suppliers further up the chain had been cancelled, when its direct supplier held a valid registration and no irregularity by the exporter was established.

E-Way Bill Penalties Turn on the Facts and the Statutory Time Limit

The journal does not treat every e-way bill breach alike.

In Lucknow Automotives v. Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), an e-way bill was generated about nine minutes after interception. The Tribunal acknowledged the lapse at the time of interception, but considered the identifiable transaction, prompt production of the document and absence of independent evidence of evasion. On those particular facts, it treated the lapse as bona fide rather than part of an attempt to evade tax.

By contrast, in the matters involving Islam Trading Co., the Tribunal held that later production of an e-way bill did not cure transportation without one. The surrounding circumstances, including repeated similar conduct, supported restoration of the original tax and penalty order. In D.S. Traders, the Tribunal upheld action where an excavator was moved without an e-way bill and the claimed exemption was not established.

Two other rulings focus on proof. In Neptune Sales Corporation and Jai Enterprises, the Tribunal rejected penalties founded on an alleged reuse of an e-way bill where earlier scanning, vehicle location or suspicion had not been supported by cogent evidence that the same goods had already completed a journey.

Timing was decisive in Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles: the Tribunal held that the seven-day period under Section 129(3) was mandatory. It quashed a penalty order issued 47 days after the relevant notice and directed release of the bank guarantee.

Important Decisions on Appeals, Registration and Tax Liability

In Reddy Veeranna Constructions, the Tribunal held that the 10% pre-deposit requirement introduced from October 1, 2025 for penalty-only appeals could not be imposed on an appeal arising from an earlier order. It treated the right of appeal as a vested substantive right that could not be burdened retrospectively without the necessary legislative basis.

In Vijayan Sahadevan (Deceased) v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, the Tribunal set aside proceedings conducted against a deceased sole proprietor without following the process for notifying the legal heir and considering the estate. The same decision examined the retrospective ITC relief under Section 16(5): while the taxpayer qualified for relief from disallowance of credit on the ground of belated filing, that provision did not remove a separate interest liability for delayed payment of admitted cash tax.

In M.S. Steels, the Tribunal held that moving goods between premises under the same GSTIN did not amount to a taxable supply merely because the goods changed location. It distinguished a possible e-way bill requirement from the tax and penalty imposed on the footing of a supply.

In Rodman Technologies, the Tribunal held that eligibility for waiver under Section 128A depended on when the disputed ITC was actually availed and became the subject of the demand. Credit first availed in December 2020 fell outside the scheme’s prescribed period, even though the underlying debit notes related to an earlier financial year.

Anti-Profiteering: Benefits Must Reach the Intended Buyers

Seven reported matters concern Section 171 and the obligation to pass on the benefit of a GST rate reduction or additional ITC.

In Alton Buildtech, the Tribunal accepted a revised calculation showing an incremental ITC benefit of 0.92%. It directed the developer to pass ₹47,71,823, including the GST component, to eligible homebuyers with applicable interest. The underlying period preceded the commencement of the penalty provision, so the Tribunal did not impose a penalty under Section 171(3A).

In A.J. Enterprises, a restaurant’s increase in base prices when the GST rate fell from 18% to 5% raised a rebuttable presumption of profiteering. The Tribunal upheld a profiteered amount of ₹13,32,322 after finding that the claimed cost increases had not been adequately substantiated. It also held that later provisions on interest and penalty could not be applied retrospectively.

The decisions also show that an anti-profiteering complaint does not automatically establish a benefit. In Sobha Limited, the Tribunal accepted the finding that a project’s ITC-to-purchase ratio had declined, leaving no incremental ITC benefit to pass on in the circumstances examined. In the Merit Magnum Construction matter, it held that merely applying for an occupancy certificate did not complete a project; the certificate had to be granted. It also explained that a provision for depositing benefits where recipients cannot be identified cannot be used as a substitute when the eligible recipients are identifiable.

What the First Volume Shows

The inaugural E-Journal offers a consolidated view of how GSTAT benches are approaching evidence, procedure and substantive entitlement. A return mismatch calls for verification; a fraud allegation calls for proof; an e-way bill dispute depends on both the statutory requirement and the established facts. At the same time, relief such as an amnesty, exemption or retrospective ITC benefit remains subject to its specific conditions.

For taxpayers and practitioners, the reported orders provide a starting point for identifying the applicable principle. The facts, statutory period and operative directions in each decision remain essential when applying it to another dispute.

Membership Required to Access E-Journal Details & Copy

To view the complete E-Journal Details and Download Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Surgical Tools Used in Spinal Operations Fall Under Customs Heading 9018, Not Orthopaedic Appliances Heading 9021: CESTAT