Income Tax Returns • GST Compliance • Tax Planning • Appeals & Litigation • Business Advisory • Schedule Your Consultation Today
GST Appellate TribunalVolume I • Till 31.08.2026Forensic Legal Analysis

GSTAT E-Journal Volume I — Knowledge Centre

The authoritative legal knowledge repository of all 27 reported judgments of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Principal Bench, Kolkata, Lucknow, Hyderabad, Thiruvananthapuram, Thane, and Bengaluru). Complete with ratio decidendi, statutory provisions, practical implications, and SKM Laws professional analysis.

27
Reported Cases
20
General GST Cases
7
Anti-Profiteering
7
GSTAT Benches
Open Master Case Law IndexMain Knowledge Centre
Showing: 27 of 27
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 181 (Bengaluru)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on GSTR-2A Mismatch and Section 75(4): Marking Hearing as 'NA' in SCN Vitiates Order; Circular 183 Verification Mandatory

M/s N. R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka
Bengaluru Bench31/08/2026•APL/2/BUR/2026

The GSTAT Bengaluru Bench held that summary disallowance of ITC due to GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A mismatch without verifying Section 16(4) carry-over under Circular 183/15/2022 is illegal. Furthermore, recording 'NA' for personal hearing in an SCN violates mandatory Section 75(4), vitiating the order.

Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017+11 more
Input Tax CreditRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 174 (Lucknow)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Wrong Tax Head Reporting of ITC: Revenue Neutrality Applies and Electronic Credit Ledger Is a Unified Pool

M/s Lucknow Test House v. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Additional Commissioner Grade- II, State Tax Lucknow & Ors.
Lucknow Bench27/08/2026•APL/36/LCK/2026

The GSTAT Lucknow Bench held that inadvertently claiming eligible IGST credit under CGST and SGST heads does not constitute excess availment where aggregate eligible ITC is not exceeded. Applying revenue neutrality and Circular 192/04/2023-GST, demand under Section 73 is unsustainable.

Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017Section 49 of CGST Act, 2017+2 more
Input Tax CreditRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 140 (Lucknow)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Alleged Reuse of E-Way Bill: Earlier Verification Without Proof of Prior Delivery Cannot Justify Section 129 Penalty

M/s Jai Enterprises v. Pankaj Gandhi, Additional Commissioner Gr-2 Appeal IV, State Tax Kanpur & Ors.
Lucknow Bench25/08/2026•APL/38/LCK/2026

The GSTAT Lucknow Bench held that detention of goods on an assumption of E-way bill reuse is legally unsustainable where the vehicle suffered a bona fide breakdown supported by repair bills and driver affidavits. Suspicion cannot take the place of evidence.

Section 112 of CGST Act, 2017Section 129 of CGST/UPGST Act, 2017Section 129(3) of CGST/UPGST Act, 2017
Section 129Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 149 (Bengaluru)
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Section 128A Amnesty: Statutory Window Confined to Date of ITC Availment, Not Date of Underlying Debit Notes

Rodman Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Karnataka State GST, Bengaluru
Bengaluru Bench25/08/2026•APL/8/BUR/2026 (Final Order No. 01/GSTAT BLR/DB 3/2026)

The GSTAT Bengaluru Bench held that Section 128A waiver of interest and penalty applies strictly to demands pertaining to 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2020 based on when ITC was availed. A December 2020 claim cannot be backdated to FY 2018-19 to claim amnesty.

Section 128A of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 128A(1) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 128A(2)–(4) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017+7 more
Section 73Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 158 (Lucknow)
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Repeat E-Way Bill Violations: Habitual Transit Without E-Way Bill Establishes Tax Evasion and Precludes Procedural Defense

Santosh Mani Mishra v. Prop. O Talpura Baheeri Upbar 243201, Islam Trading Co.
Lucknow Bench25/08/2026•APL/87/LCK/2026

The GSTAT Lucknow Bench held that where a trader repeatedly moves sensitive goods (iron scrap) across an inter-State border without an E-way bill, generating it only after interception, a deliberate intention to evade tax is established, barring technical-lapse defenses under Section 129.

Section 112 of UPGST Act, 2017Section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017Section 129(3) of UPGST Act, 2017
Section 129Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 163 (Lucknow)
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Movement of Own Machinery: Delivery Challan Cannot Replace E-Way Bill Where Rental Tax Treatment Is Unproven

D.S Traders v. Commissioner, Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Department Lucknow Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Lucknow Bench25/08/2026•APL/52/LCK/2026

The GSTAT Lucknow Bench held that movement of capital machinery from a job site without an E-way bill attracts penalty under Section 129(3), even if accompanied by a delivery challan under the same GSTIN, where the taxpayer fails to prove discharge of GST on machine hire consideration.

Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017Section 68 of CGST Act, 2017Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017+3 more
Section 129Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 170 (Lucknow)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Alleged E-Way Bill Reuse: Vehicle Location and Earlier Verification Insufficient to Presume Tax Evasion Without Proof

M/s. Neptune Sales Corporation v. Additional Commissioner Gr-2 Appeal- IV Lucknow, Addl. Commr. Lucknow & Ors.
Lucknow Bench25/08/2026•Appeal No. APL/33/LCK/2026

The GSTAT Lucknow Bench held that Section 129 penalty cannot be imposed on mere suspicion of E-way bill reuse based on earlier vehicle checking. Where goods are accompanied by valid tax invoices, e-invoices, and E-way bills, Department must lead positive evidence of completed prior delivery.

Section 68 of CGST Act, 2017Section 112 of CGST Act, 2017Section 129 of CGST/UPGST Act, 2017+1 more
Section 129Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 122 (Thiruvananthapuram)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Section 74 Suppression: GSTR-9C Annual Disclosures Negate Fraud, and Audit Non-Reply Cannot Be a Fresh Appellate Ground

M/s Santhhome Latex Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST, Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram Bench21/08/2026•APL/21/TVP/2026 (Final Order No. 04/TVP/KERALA/2026)

The GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram Bench held that mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC cannot attract Section 74 where reconciliation was uploaded in GSTR-9C. Appellate authorities cannot sustain Section 74 on unpleaded grounds such as failure to reply to an audit query.

Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017Section 16(2) of CGST Act, 2017Section 17 of CGST Act, 2017+11 more
Section 74Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 131 (Thiruvananthapuram)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Deceased Proprietors & Section 16(5): Proceedings Without Notice to Legal Heir Void Under Section 93

Vijayan Sahadevan (Deceased) v. The Commissioner of Kerala State GST, Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram Bench21/08/2026•APL/19/TVP/2026

The GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram Bench held that tax proceedings against a deceased proprietor are void without statutory notice to the legal heir under Section 93(1)(b). Furthermore, retrospectively inserted Section 16(5) cures belated ITC claims filed prior to 30.11.2021.

Section 16(4) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 16(5) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 93 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017+6 more
Section 73Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 99 (Kolkata)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Bill-to-Ship-to Exports: Toll Receipts Not Mandatory for ITC Refund and Second-Line Supplier Defaults Inapplicable

Anil Kumar Singh v. Director, Agarwala’s Bitumex Private Limited
Kolkata Bench20/08/2026•APL/10/KLK/2026 AND APL/14/KLK/2026

The GSTAT Kolkata Bench held that under the Bill-to-Ship-to model (Section 10(1)(b) IGST Act), goods need not originate from the supplier's registered address, and toll receipts are not mandatory to prove transit. Cancellation of upstream second-line suppliers cannot defeat an exporter's refund under Section 54(3).

Section 10(1)(b) of IGST Act, 2017Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017Section 16(2) of CGST Act, 2017+5 more
RefundRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 109 (Hyderabad)
Partly in Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Composition Threshold Breach: Automatic Exit Under Section 10(3) and Mandatory Cum-Tax Benefit Under Rule 35

M/s. Sri Parameshwara Bricks v. State Tax Officer, Peddapalli Circle & Ors.
Hyderabad Bench20/08/2026•APL/126/HYD/2026 & APL/26/HYD/2026 (Common Order Nos. 001/HYD/2026 & 002/HYD/2026)

The GSTAT Hyderabad Bench held that upon exceeding the ₹1.50 crore turnover threshold, composition eligibility lapses automatically under Section 10(3). However, because composition dealers cannot collect tax separately under Section 10(4), differential liability must be calculated using cum-tax valuation under Rule 35.

Section 10(1) of TSGST/CGST Act, 2017Section 10(3) of TSGST/CGST Act, 2017Section 10(4) of TSGST/CGST Act, 2017+6 more
Composition SchemeRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 118 (Lucknow)
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Sensitive Goods in Border Transit: Subsequent E-Way Bill Cannot Cure Omission When Evading Intent Is Clear

Om Prakash v. Prop, Islam Trading Co.
Lucknow Bench20/08/2026•APL/79/LCK/2026

The GSTAT Lucknow Bench held that transporting sensitive iron scrap over a short 25-km inter-State border without an E-way bill on manual invoices establishes intention to evade tax. Subsequent production during reply cannot cure the breach under Section 129(3).

Section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017Section 129(1) of UPGST Act, 2017Section 129(3) of UPGST Act, 2017+1 more
Section 129Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 75 (Lucknow)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on E-Way Bill Generation 9 Minutes After Interception: Section 129 Penalty Quashed for Bona Fide Procedural Lapse

M/s Lucknow Automotives v. Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Gonda
Lucknow Bench14/08/2026•APL/8/LCK/2026

The GSTAT Lucknow Bench held that generating an E-way bill approximately 9 minutes after interception does not attract penalty under Section 129(3) where the transaction is genuine, fully documented with invoices, and pertains to traceable goods like motorcycles.

Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017Section 129(3) of CGST Act, 2017Section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017+1 more
Section 129Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 80 (Thiruvananthapuram)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Same-GSTIN Stock Transfers: Section 129 Penalty Inapplicable to Non-Supply Movements Dehors Section 9

MS Steels v. The Commissioner of Kerala State GST, Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram Bench14/08/2026•APL/1/TVP/2026

The GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram Bench held that movement of goods between premises under the same GSTIN does not constitute a 'supply' under Section 7. Because no tax is payable under Section 9, tax-linked penalty under Section 129(1)(a) cannot be imposed for omission of an E-way bill.

Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017Section 7(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017Section 9 of CGST Act, 2017+8 more
Section 129Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 90 (Thiruvananthapuram)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Section 129(3) Limitation: 7-Day Timeline to Pass Penalty Order Is Mandatory; MOV-09 After 47 Days Void

Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles v. The Commissioner Of Kerala State GST, Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram Bench14/08/2026•APL/2/TVP/2026

The GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram Bench held that the 7-day period prescribed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act for passing a penalty order is strictly mandatory. A Form GST MOV-09 order passed 47 days after service of notice is barred by limitation and void ab initio.

Section 68 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 129 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 129(1) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017+2 more
Section 129Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 51 (Kolkata)
Partly in Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on MEIS Duty Credit Scrips: Rule 43 ITC Exclusion Is Prospective, but Section 74 Cannot Apply Without Suppression

Commissioner CGST & Cx, Kolkata North v. M/s. Power Tech Global Private Limited
Kolkata Bench05/08/2026•APL/62/KLK/2026, APL/74/KLK/2026 & APL/75/KLK/2026

The GSTAT Kolkata Bench held that Notification No. 14/2022 amending Rule 43 to exclude MEIS Duty Credit Scrips from exempt supplies is prospective from 05.07.2022. However, Section 74 cannot be invoked against taxpayers who filed returns regularly; under Section 75(2), tax must be determined under Section 73.

Section 2(47) of CGST Act, 2017Section 11 of CGST Act, 2017Section 17 of CGST Act, 2017+10 more
Section 74Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 37 (Thane)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Transitional Credit: GST Authorities Lack Jurisdiction Under Section 74 to Re-Examine Pre-GST CENVAT Credit

Tata Unistore Limited v. Commissioner CGST & Ex., Navi Mumbai
Thane Bench31/07/2026•APL/8/THN/2026

The GSTAT Thane Bench held that proceedings under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act cannot be initiated to question the admissibility of CENVAT credit availed under erstwhile pre-GST laws. The Tribunal affirmed the transition of closing balances, Krishi Kalyan Cess, and VAT credits without de novo invoice verification.

Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017Section 140(1) of CGST Act, 2017Section 140(5) of CGST Act, 2017+13 more
Transitional CreditRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 33 (Hyderabad)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Section 112(8) Pre-Deposit: 10% Penalty Pre-Deposit Under Finance Act 2025 Operates Prospectively

Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd v. Appeal-I Commissioner & Ors.
Hyderabad Bench28/07/2026•APL/623/HYD/2026

The GSTAT Hyderabad Bench ruled that the proviso to Section 112(8) requiring a 10% pre-deposit of penalty in penalty-only appeals is prospective from 01.10.2025. Appeals arising from orders passed prior to that date cannot be subjected to the additional pre-deposit.

Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017Section 107(6) of CGST Act, 2017Section 112 of CGST Act, 2017+4 more
GST AppealsRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 262 (Principal Bench)Anti-Profiteering
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Real Estate Anti-Profiteering: Project Completion Reckoned from Actual Grant of OC, CWF Deposit Rejected for Identifiable Buyers

DG Anti-Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Merit Magnum Construction (Formerly M/S Vimal Builders)
Principal Bench17/07/2026•APPEAL NO. NAPA/146/PB/2025

The GSTAT Principal Bench ruled that project completion for Section 171 is governed by the actual grant of the Occupancy Certificate (13.10.2017), not the application date. Real estate developers cannot divert refunds to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Rule 133(3)(c) where buyer records exist.

Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(3A) of CGST Act, 2017+5 more
Anti-ProfiteeringRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 242 (Principal Bench)Anti-Profiteering
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Real Estate Anti-Profiteering: Project-Wise Savings Per Square Foot Methodology Upheld, Inter-Buyer Set-Off Rejected

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) v. Emaar
Principal Bench06/07/2026•NAPA 153/PB/2025

The GSTAT Principal Bench affirmed the Reckitt Benckiser methodology of allocating total GST tax savings over total project saleable area. Excess benefit passed on to 204 homebuyers cannot be set off against shortfalls due to 226 buyers, ordering refund of ₹67.32 Lakhs with 18% interest.

Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(3A) of CGST Act, 2017+3 more
Anti-ProfiteeringRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 15 (Principal Bench)
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Centralized Procurement Hubs: Exclusion from Intermediary Under Section 2(13) and Place of Supply as Import of Services

Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax
Principal Bench04/06/2026•APL 2 TO 7 (PB) OF 2026

The GSTAT Principal Bench held that procurement and sourcing operations rendered on own account by a foreign centralized group hub are not intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, but qualify as an import of services taxable in India under Section 13(2).

Section 2(11) of IGST Act, 2017Section 2(13) of IGST Act, 2017Section 5(3) of IGST Act, 2017+5 more
Place of SupplyRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 230 (Principal Bench)Anti-Profiteering
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Real Estate Anti-Profiteering: Input Services Included, Customer Email Denials Discredited, and Excess Not Adjustable

DG Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Vasavi and GP Infra LLP
Principal Bench07/05/2026•NAPA/28/PB/2025

The GSTAT Principal Bench held that anti-profiteering obligations are strictly recipient-specific: excess benefit passed to one buyer cannot offset shortfalls to another. ITC on input services cannot be excluded, while contemporaneous books prevail over customer email denials.

Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(3A) of CGST Act, 2017
Anti-ProfiteeringRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 222 (Principal Bench)Anti-Profiteering
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on Post-GST Real Estate Projects: No Section 171 Profiteering Where Allotment, Construction and Payments Occurred Post-GST

DG Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Sobha Limited
Principal Bench02/04/2026•NAPA/98/PB/2025

The GSTAT Principal Bench held that where property booking, agreement, construction, and payments transpired entirely in the post-GST era, paragraph 128(d) of Reckitt Benckiser applies. A negative ITC-to-purchase differential (-1.24%) establishes zero profiteering.

Section 109(3) of CGST Act, 2017Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017+1 more
Anti-ProfiteeringRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 212 (Principal Bench)Anti-Profiteering
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Restaurant GST Rate Cut: Base Price Hikes on Date of Tax Reduction Constitute Profiteering; Rule 133 Limitation Directory

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) v. A.J. Enterprises
Principal Bench20/02/2026•NAPA/2/PB/2025

The GSTAT Principal Bench held that increasing base prices on the exact date of a GST rate reduction (18% to 5%) without clear proof of cost inflation creates an unrebutted presumption of profiteering. The 6-month timeline under Rule 133 is directory, and 18% interest is prospective.

Section 109(3) of CGST Act, 2017Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017+1 more
Anti-ProfiteeringRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 209 (Principal Bench)Anti-Profiteering
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Real Estate Anti-Profiteering: Revised ITC-to-Purchase Methodology Upheld and Penalty Held Prospective

DG Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Alton Buildtech Pvt. Ltd
Principal Bench17/02/2026•NAPA/113/PB/2025

The GSTAT Principal Bench accepted the DGAP's revised computation under Reckitt Benckiser reducing profiteering from ₹6.24 Cr to ₹47.71 Lakhs based on a 0.92% incremental ITC ratio. The Tribunal held that Section 171(3A) penalty cannot apply retrospectively to pre-2020 projects.

Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(3A) of CGST Act, 2017
Anti-ProfiteeringRead Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 1 (Principal Bench)
In Favour of Assessee

GSTAT on GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B Mismatch: Section 74 Cannot Apply Without Fraud and Tribunal Is Final Court of Fact

Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST & Ors.
Principal Bench11/02/2026•APL/1/PB/2026

The GSTAT Principal Bench held that mere clerical mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B cannot sustain Section 74 proceedings without proof of mens rea. Under Section 75(2), only the original Proper Officer has jurisdiction to redetermine tax under Section 73 upon remand.

Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017Section 75(2) of CGST Act, 2017+5 more
Section 74Read Forensic Analysis
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 191 (Principal Bench)Anti-Profiteering
In Favour of DGAP / Revenue

GSTAT on Anti-Profiteering in Cinema Tickets: State Price Caps Do Not Excuse Section 171, and Rule 133(3)(c) Interest Is Prospective

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) v. Mallikarjuna Cinema Hall, 70mm Hyderabad
Principal Bench12/09/2025•APPEAL NO. NAPA/3/PB/2025

The GSTAT Principal Bench held that cinema theatre owners must pass on GST rate reductions (28% to 18%) through commensurate base price cuts regardless of State ticket price caps. An admission of profit recovery proves profiteering, while 18% interest under Rule 133(3)(c) operates strictly prospectively.

Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017Section 171(3A) of CGST Act, 2017+3 more
Anti-ProfiteeringRead Forensic Analysis