Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT. *  Services to singapore head office not ‘Intermediary Services’: CESTAT. *  Satellite transponder capacity received from foreign providers not taxable as business support service: CESTAT *  Sugar export ban upheld: Bombay High Court says private contracts and advance payments can’t override govt. policy. *  No CA or CMA certification required for interest on already-sanctioned GST refund: Telangana High Court. *  GST demand order uploaded only on common portal doesn’t trigger appeal limitation: Delhi High Court. *  GST refund can’t remain locked in ITC when business has closed: Allahabad High Court. *  Sec. 129 Penalty can’t be imposed on stock transfer without e-way bill: GSTAT. *  Subsequent supplier’s GST registration cancellation by itself, doesn’t establish fraudulent ITC availment: Karnataka High Court. *  DGGI Jaipur | Rajasthan High Court denies bail in central excise duty evasion case, cites seriousness of alleged unregistered tobacco Manufacturing. *  Dept. can’t force assessee to adopt more punitive CENVAT credit option under rule 6: Calcutta High Court. *  GST levy on corporate guarantees upheld: Gujarat High Court. *  Calcutta High Court allows appeal against Ex-parte GST order after medical emergencies prevented reply to SCN. *  Legality of gold confiscation based on retracted statement questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court frames 8 substantial questions of law. *  Interest on delayed duty drawback runs from 1month after ‘Let Export Order’, not final adjudication: Delhi High Court. *  High Courts can’t grant post-dismissal arrest protection in GST pre-arrest bail matters; Sec. 69 arrest order must be communicated: Supreme Court. *  Whether RERA registration can determine GST classification of ‘Ongoing Project’: Rajasthan High Court issues stay notice. *  GSTAT admits Bharti Airtel’s appeal on ITC dispute involving section 17(5)(c) and (d) of CGST Act. *  Showroom interior fit-outs constitutes “Original Works”, CESTAT quashes ?2.61 crore service tax demand. *  CESTAT upholds extended limitation for inadmissible CENVAT credit availed during area-based exemption. *  Refund can’t be denied merely for not challenging Bill of entry when exempt duty was paid inadvertently: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST Appeal limitation must run from DRC-07 communication, not detailed adjudication order: Madras High Court. *  GST amnesty waiver covers self-assessed tax: Madras High Court. *  AIFTP seeks one-time GST amnesty to revive appeals dismissed for delay under section. 107.
Subject News *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure. *  Madras High court stays GST recovery initiated under section. 79 without prior determination under section 73. *  GST Dept. must establish deliberate tax evasion before using extended limitation: GSTAT. *  GST officers can’t keep business premises sealed after search ends: Gauhati High Court. *  GST adjudication order ignoring CBIC circular challenged: Bombay HC grants ad-interim protection to Skoda Auto Volkswagen. *  Alleged evidentiary errors, cross-examination issues, earlier GST audit questions must be raised before Appellate authority: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected on erroneous limitation calculation: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Adjudication and Appellate orders passed without supplying seized documents to assessee quashed: Bombay High Court stays coercive GST recovery. *  GST search without sharing DIN violates transparency safeguards, but doesn’t invalidate search: Madras High Court. *  Statutory GST appeal can’t be circumvented by mere natural justice allegations: Bombay HC. *  Whether banks can simultaneously avail ITC u/s 17(2) and 17(4)? - Madras High Court stays GST adjudication against City Union Bank. *  Driver’s statement on plain paper has ‘Very Little Evidentiary Value’: Allahabad High Court quashes GST penalty order. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied on duty-paid inputs from area-based exempt units: CESTAT. *  Ignoring taxpayer’s reply while rejecting GST refund is illegal: Bombay High Court. *  Dept. can’t allege suppression after earlier audit on same issue: CESTAT quashes Excise demand on limitation. *  Sales-tax concession cannot be denied unless government notification is expressly rescinded: Telangana High Court. *  GST appeal delay condoned after portal continued to show case as ‘Pending for order’: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs duty exemption can’t be denied without test report to support reclassification: CESTAT.  

Comments
Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update / 2026-27/0072

M/s Sri Raghavendra Swami Traders & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

GST UPDATE

Hon’ble Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Case Title: M/s Sri Raghavendra Swami Traders & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Petition No. & Citation: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8542/2026; 2026-TIOL-963-HC-RAJ-GST
Hon’ble Judge(s) Arun Monga & Maneesh Sharma, JJ
Date of Order 17 July 2026
Outcome In favour of the Appellant
 

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Sri Raghavendra Swami Traders, was engaged in the sale and transportation of goods from Karnataka to Nagpur. The goods were accompanied by a duly generated e-invoice and e-way bill. On 02.12.2025, the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted by the authorities. Although the driver produced the relevant documents and physical verification was undertaken, proceedings were initiated on the ground that the vehicle had proceeded towards Jaipur instead of Nagpur. The petitioner explained that the deviation was an unintentional mistake, which was also communicated to the department by email dated 10.12.2025. Despite the explanation furnished by the petitioner, the department issued a show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 under Section 130 of the CGST Act, proposing confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty and fine amounting to ?96,35,850/-. The petitioner submitted its reply; however, a confiscation order dated 22.01.2026 was thereafter passed. Aggrieved by the confiscation order, the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court of Rajasthan by filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5233/2026. The said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn on 28.04.2026 with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy. While granting such liberty, the Court also directed that the statutory appeal be considered on merits without raising any objection as to limitation. Thus, the petitioner was specifically relegated to the statutory appellate mechanism for challenging the confiscation order. However, despite repeated requests to the department, including an email dated 04.05.2026, the password of the temporary GST ID was not provided. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to access the GST portal and file the statutory appeal electronically. The petitioner therefore approached the High Court once again by filing the present petition.

Question before Hon’ble Court

Whether the failure of the department to provide the password of the temporary GST ID, despite repeated requests, could effectively frustrate the statutory appellate remedy available to the petitioner pursuant to the earlier order of the High Court?

Brief Arguments by Petitioner

  • The petitioner contended that the statutory procedure prescribed under Rule 142 of the CGST Rules had not been followed as no summary notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued under Rule 142(1), and no summary order in Form GST DRC-07 was issued under Rule 142(5).
  • A temporary GST ID was generated in the name of the driver. However, the password for accessing the temporary GST ID was not communicated to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to access the GST portal and avail the statutory appellate remedy electronically.

Findings and Judgement

The Court specifically contemplated in its earlier order that the temporary ID could be issued in the name of the proprietor/partner or their representatives, and directed that the matter be dealt with expeditiously and not later than 30 days from the date of uploading of the order. However, the High Court took note of the fact that the petitioner was unable to access the GST portal because the password associated with the temporary GST ID had not been communicated. Rather than allowing such an impediment to defeat the appellate remedy, the Court required the Competent Authority to process the application for the temporary ID expeditiously and in accordance with law.

CA Pradeep Jain_ 

This is solely for educational purpose
Readers can also access this from our 
Linkedin account : www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16 
& Our Website : new.capradeepjain.com

Post a Comment
Department News


Query
 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com