| Central Excise |
N/A |
Notification No. 52/2026-Central Excise |
Click Here |
Special Additional Excise Duty (SAED) on export of high-speed diesel oil is reduced from ₹20 to ₹16 per litre with effect from 01-10-2026 (excluding exports by PSUs to specified countries). |
| Central Excise |
N/A |
Notification No. 53/2026-Central Excise |
Click Here |
Special Additional Excise Duty (SAED) on Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) is reduced from ₹15 to ₹10.5 per litre with effect from 01-10-2026. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 16 |
Satyendra Singh v. L and T Technology Services Ltd. |
Click Here |
Where ITC was availed from a vendor whose GST registration was retrospectively cancelled, in the absence of evidence showing non-receipt of goods or fictitious invoices, the appeal against the appellate order allowing ITC was dismissed. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 29 |
Safelane Agencies v. Superintendent of GST and C.Ex |
Click Here |
Discontinuation of business is a valid statutory ground for cancelling GST registration. Authorities cannot reject a cancellation application solely due to outstanding tax demand, as dues can be recovered post-cancellation. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 54 |
Matrix Cellular (International) Services (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, State Tax, Delhi |
Click Here |
SLP dismissed against the High Court decision holding that a review petition seeking interest for a disputed period after withdrawing a refund application is not maintainable in the absence of an error apparent on the record. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax |
Click Here |
Where only one invoice with duplicate e-way bills remained in dispute post-appeal, limited remand was directed to provide a personal hearing, while relief granted for the other invoice remained undisturbed. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax |
Click Here |
Following the amendment making Form GST DRC-01A non-mandatory, the non-issuance of pre-SCN intimation does not vitiate the initiation or adjudication of demand proceedings. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
GSR Handlooms v. Assistant Commissioner ST |
Click Here |
Passing a single composite summary assessment order covering multiple assessment years is legally unsustainable; separate proceedings must be initiated for each assessment year. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 75 |
Safelane Agencies v. Superintendent of GST and C.Ex |
Click Here |
An assessment order confirming a tax demand beyond the scope of the SCN and failing to account for tax already paid via GSTR-3B is invalid and liable to be set aside for fresh consideration. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 75 |
Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax |
Click Here |
Confirming a demand without granting a personal hearing requested after reply submission violates statutory natural justice principles and duty to record reasons, vitiating the order. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 75 |
Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax |
Click Here |
Referencing the statutory cancellation mechanism window by appellate authorities to evaluate a taxpayer’s defense of unintentional duplicate e-way bills does not amount to raising a new ground. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 112 |
Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax |
Click Here |
Where the Appellate Authority gives partial relief on an invoice and the Revenue does not challenge that part before the Tribunal, that relief stands undisturbed and outside the Tribunal’s purview. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 113 |
Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax |
Click Here |
Appellate proceedings cannot cure the breach of a statutory personal hearing committed at the original stage; limited remand is necessary to afford a fresh hearing and examine primary evidence. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 129 |
JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. v. State GST Karnataka |
Click Here |
Detaining goods and levying penalties solely due to e-way bill expiry caused by a software glitch—when all other genuine invoice documents were present and no intent to evade tax existed—is invalid. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 171 |
Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering |
Click Here |
Calculating anti-profiteering benefit based on actual availed pre-GST credit (NIL) rather than unavailed entitlement is correct when computing the net benefit accrued on transition to GST. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 171 |
Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering |
Click Here |
DGAP’s anti-profiteering computation for a residential project using purchase value against project cost and area-wise distribution as per remand directions was valid and without jurisdictional error. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 171 |
Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering |
Click Here |
Adding 12% GST to the base profiteered amount is lawful because GST collected from homebuyers on excess realizations forms part of the profiteered amount. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 171 |
Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering |
Click Here |
Ordering payment of 18% interest on the profiteered amount from the date of collection is a valid statutory remedial measure ensuring proper restitution to homebuyers. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 171 |
Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering |
Click Here |
A developer’s claim for recalculation of profiteering based on rate increases or economic factors is untenable when project-level savings and base profiteering methodologies are correctly applied. |
