GST Weekly Flashback: 23 To 29 November 2025

Goods and Service Tax (GST) Weekly Flashback for the period from 23 to 29 November 2025. Delhi High Court Bank Attachment Order Crossed 1 Year Not Quashed | Delhi HC Imposes Cost Of Rs. 1 Lakh On Party For Concealing Facts Case Title: Aashish Versus DGGI Case No.: W.P.(C) 16680/2025 In a major relief to the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) has refused to quash the bank attachment order crossed 1 year and imposed the cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on party for concealing the facts. Delhi High Court Sets Aside GST Appellate Order Passed After One-Day Hearing Notice; Directs Appeal to Be Heard on Merits Case Title: M/S Arjun Engineering Co. Versus Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi Case No.: W.P.(C) 17680/2025 & CM APPL. 73047/2025 The Delhi High Court has quashed a GST appellate order that dismissed an appeal solely on the ground of delay, after observing that the taxpayer was given only one day’s notice for the personal hearing — a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Delhi HC Quashes GST Rectification Order Passed Without Hearing; Protects Assessee from Coercive Action Case Title: Davender Kumar Chadha Pro Liberty Cables (India) Versus Sales Tax Officer Class II AVATO WARD 63 AND ANR Case No.: W.P.(C) 16844/2025 & CM APPL. 69228/2025 The Delhi High Court has set aside a rectification order after finding that the GST Department failed to grant a mandatory personal hearing before rejecting the rectification application. Delhi High Court Quashes GST Demand After Pre-SCN Tax Deposit by Dealer Case Title: Delhi Sales Corporation Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax & Ors. Case No.: W.P.(C) 15646/2025 & CM APPL. 63996/2025 The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand raised against a city-based trading entity after finding that the assessee had already deposited the disputed tax amount nearly two years before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice (SCN). Rs. 2.01 Cr ITC Payment Ignored by Tax Dept.: Delhi HC Sends GST Penalty Dispute to GSTAT Without Pre-Deposit Case Title: A And T Security Services Pvt Ltd Versus Addl Commissioner Of Cgst Delhi West & Anr. Case No.: W.P.(C) 16906/2025, CM APPL. 69532/2025 & CM APPL. 69533/2025 The Delhi High Court has directed that a GST penalty dispute involving allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) be taken to the newly constituted GST Appellate Tribunal, after observing that tax authorities failed to consider a substantial pre-existing payment of ₹2,01,20,299 already made by the assessee. Delhi HC Quashes GST Demand ; Allows Fresh Hearing After Noting Notices Were Missed on Portal Subject To Rs. 10K Cost Case Title: M/S GLOBUS AGROFOODS PVT. LTD Versus UOI Case No.: W.P.(C) 17691/2025, CM APPL. 73110/2025 The Delhi High Court has set aside GST demand orders after observing that the company did not receive a fair opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) — one of which was uploaded only under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab on the GST portal, leading to the assessee missing the notices entirely. Delhi HC Allows Company to Appeal Against GST Demand After Delay Citing Director’s Ill Health Case Title: Ping Pong Global Limited Versus UOI Case No.: W.P.(C) 16974/2025& CM APPL. 73185/2025 The Delhi High Court has permitted the company to file a delayed appeal against a GST demand of ₹75.78 lakh for FY 2019–20, after finding that the company’s lapse in responding to a show cause notice (SCN) and subsequent ex-parte order appeared to be bonafide and attributable to the prolonged medical condition of one of its directors. GST Refunds Blocking Could Adversely Impact Businesses; Appellate Authority Can’t Delay Adjudication: Delhi HC Case Title: Idp Education India Private Limited Versus Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Case No.: W.P.(C) 17694/2025 The Delhi High Court has held that the Appellate Authority cannot delay the adjudication or refund applications as the blocking of refunds could have adverse impact on businesses. Delhi HC Slams GST Dept. for ‘Mechanical’ Cancellation of boAt Parent’s Registration; Restores GSTIN, Imposes Rs. 25K Cost Case Title: Ms Imagine Marketing Limited Versus Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals II Delhi & Anr. Case No.: W.P.(C) 17699/2025& CM APPL. 73120/2025 The Delhi High Court has set aside the cancellation of GST registration of Imagine Marketing Limited, the parent company of audio and wearable brand boAt, calling the tax department’s actions “cavalier”, “mechanical”, and lacking even “fundamental fairness”. Taxpayers Can’t Be Penalised For Service Tax Portal Becoming Non Functional After GST Migration: Delhi HC Allows Pre-Deposit Made Under Excise Head Towards Service Tax Appeal Case Title: Navin Road Lines Versus Assistant Registrar Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Case No. : W.P.(C) 5464/2025 The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to hear the company’s appeal on merits after accepting the pre-deposit that was mistakenly paid under the Central Excise Head rather than under the Service Tax Head and held that taxpayers cannot be penalised for service-tax portal becoming non-functional after GST migration. Allahabad High Court Senior Tax Officers to File Affidavits; Allahabad HC Seeks Clarification on Whether GST-Related Offences Can Be Prosecuted Under IPC Case Title: Rajat Garg Versus State of U.P. and Another Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. – 12342 of 2025 The Allahabad High Court has raised critical questions on the legality of prosecuting alleged Goods and Services Tax (GST) offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), directing senior officials of the Uttar Pradesh State Tax Department to personally examine case records and file affidavits clarifying whether the offences in a pending matter fall under the UP GST Act or the IPC. S. 129(1)(b) Misapplied Despite Valid E-Way Bill; Allahabad HC Quashes GST Penalty for Goods in Transit Case Title: M/S Sen Traders Versus State of UP Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 6021 of 2025 The Allahabad High Court has quashed a penalty order issued under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that the authorities had incorrectly applied the provision despite the goods being accompanied by valid tax invoices and e-way bills. Seizure Proceeding Is Justified In Absence Of E-Way Bill: Allahabad HC Case Title: M/s Birds RO System Private Limited Versus State of UP Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 987 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has upheld the seizure of goods transported without an e-way bill and ruling that such movement establishes a presumption of intent to evade tax. Allahabad HC Declines To Interfere With Suspension Of State Tax Officer Accused Of Allowing Bogus Firm To Fraudulently Avail GST ITC Case Title: Sanjay Nath Saroj Versus State of UP Case No.: WRIT – A No. – 15729 of 2025 The Allahabad High Court has refused to set aside the suspension of a State Tax officer accused of allowing a bogus firm to fraudulently avail input tax credit (ITC) worth Rs. 3.32 crore, observing that the allegations warranted a departmental inquiry and the Court could not step into the role of the disciplinary authority. Municipalities Lost Legislative Authority To Levy Advertisement Tax After GST Regime: Allahabad HC Quashes Demand Case Title: M/S Saffron Communication Pvt Ltd And Another Versus State of U.P. Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 813 of 2019 The Allahabad High Court while quashing the advertisement demand held that municipalities lost legislative authority to levy advertisement tax after GST regime. Allahabad HC Strikes Down GST Circular Restricting Refunds on Inverted Duty Structure for Edible Oil Sector Case Title: M/S Vaibhav Edibles Private Limited Versus State of UP Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 1060 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has delivered significant relief to edible oil manufacturers by striking down a key portion of GST Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST, which restricted refund applications related to unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) arising from an inverted duty structure. Allahabad HC Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings Over ‘Excess Stock’; Says Section 130 Can’t Be Invoked Case Title: Vidyarthi Dresses Versus State of UP Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 4971 of 2025 The Allahabad High Court has set aside GST confiscation proceedings holding that the authorities wrongly invoked Section 130 of the GST Act on the basis of alleged excess stock found during a business-premises survey. Valid E-Way Bill Shows No Intent to Evade Tax: Allahabad HC Quashes GST Seizure for Undeclared Delivery Address Case Title: M/S Prostar M Info Systems Limited Versus State of UP and 3 others Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 1469 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has set aside orders passed by the GST authorities detaining and penalising a consignment, holding that the mere non-declaration of a delivery destination as an additional place of business cannot be a ground for seizure when the goods were accompanied by a valid e-way bill. Allahabad HC Quashes Rs. 28.79 Lakh GST Demand for Denial of Personal Hearing Case Title: Gangotri Engineers Versus State of UP Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 1175 of 2025 The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed a GST demand order of ₹28,79,278.85 after concluding that the order was passed without granting the taxpayer a mandatory opportunity of personal hearing. The Court held that such an action amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Allahabad HC Quashes GST Demand for Exceeding Show-Cause Notice, Orders Fresh Assessment Case Title: Gangotri Engineers Thru. Proprietor Rajeev Pandey Versus State of UP Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 1175 of 2025 The Allahabad High Court has set aside a GST demand order after finding that the tax authorities imposed a liability far beyond what was proposed in the original show-cause notice. Allahabad HC Stays GST Demand On Royalty Paid For Mining Case Title: M/S Sagar Brick Field Versus UOI Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 1110 of 2025 The Allahabad High Court has stayed the goods and service tax (GST) demand on royalty paid for mining. Transporter Can’t Be Penalised for Consignor’s Loading Error; Vehicle Seizure Held Unjustified: Allahabad HC Case Title: M/S Anish Transport Company Versus State of UP Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 324 of 2022 The Allahabad High Court has held that the transporter cannot be penalised for the consignor’s loading error and the seizure of the vehicle was unjustified. Madhya Pradesh High Court Contract Terms Can’t Be Altered Mid-Execution: MP High Court Rejects Contractor’s Plea for Refund of Additional GST Case Title: Ojas Construction Versus State of MP Case No.: WRIT PETITION No. 39844 of 2025 The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a construction firm seeking reimbursement of additional Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid during the execution of a government contract, holding that contractual terms regarding tax liabilities cannot be modified after the agreement is signed. MP High Court Declines to Interfere with Rs. 168 Crore GST Show-Cause Notice: Here’s Why? Case Title: Ve Commercial Vehicle Versus UOI Case No.: Writ Petition No. 40414 Of 2025 The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has refused to quash a show-cause notice involving proposed GST recovery of Rs. 168.19 crore, along with interest and penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Chhattisgarh High Court Lottery Cyber Scam: Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail of Youth Accused in Obtaining ₹2.20 Lakh Under The Pretext Of GST, Income Tax Case Title: Aazad Hussain Versus Case No.: MCRCA No. 1637 of 2025 The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to 21-year-old Aazad Hussain, who is facing allegations of participating in an interstate cyber fraud racket that duped a complainant of ₹2,20,500 under the guise GST and Income Tax on reward. Punjab & Haryana HC Rule 86A Can’t Be Invoked Without Available Credit: Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Negative ITC Blocking Case Title: Iskcon Steel Traders Versus UOI Case No.: CWP-29597-2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered an important ruling restricting the scope of powers exercised by GST authorities under Rule 86A. The bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal held that officers cannot block Input Tax Credit (ITC) in excess of the credit actually available in a taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). The decision comes as a major relief for businesses grappling with arbitrary “negative blocking” of ITC. Tripura High Court Tax Dept. Can’t Compel Transporter To Leave Security Deposit With Dept. Under GST Regime: HC Imposes Rs. 20K Cost On Superintendent Case Title: M/s North East Carrying Corporation Ltd. (NECC) versus State of Tripura Case No.: WP(C) No.36 of 2025 The Tripura High Court while imposing the cost of Rs. 20,000 on the Superintendent of Taxes quashed penalty proceedings initiated after nearly a decade under the repealed Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act) against a transporter and ordered the government to refund ₹12 lakh deposited as security in 2013, along with 7% annual interest. Lower Courts Mumbai Court Grants Bail to Businessman Accused of ₹13.48 Crore GST Input Tax Credit Fraud Case Title: Shri. Jitendra Chandulal Jain Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit Case No.: R. A. NO. 907 OF 2025 The Esplanade Court, Mumbai has granted bail to businessman Jitendra Chandulal Jain, director of New Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., who was arrested for allegedly availing and passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth ₹26.65 crore under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act.

GST Weekly Flashback: 23 To 29 November 2025

Membership Required

Latest articles

Advance Authorisation Imports Entitled To Benefit Despite One-Month Notification Gap: CESTAT Quashes Rs. 91.53 Lakh CVD Demand

Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation? Supreme Court Issues Notice

Legal Notice Alone Can’t Establish Tax Liability: CESTAT

License Fee, Technical Assistance Charges Not Includible In Customs Value Unless They Are a Condition of Sale: CESTAT

More like this

Advance Authorisation Imports Entitled To Benefit Despite One-Month Notification Gap: CESTAT Quashes Rs. 91.53 Lakh CVD Demand

Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation? Supreme Court Issues Notice

Legal Notice Alone Can’t Establish Tax Liability: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories