Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  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.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  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.  

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