In this News Letter 1st Edition of April 2026 you’ll find:
1. RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
2. GST UPDATES
3. DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN April 2026
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
VIJAY STEEL INDUSTRIES VS. UT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR THROUGH STATE TAX OFFICER WP(C) NO. 956/2023 (Jammu Kashmir & Ladakh High Court at Jammu)
The Petitioner herein is an industrial unit in Jammu manufacturing Tor Steel, M.S. Angles, Flats, Rounds, and TMT Bars and holds Unique ID No. 57/JAMMU-1AAFFV2839PIZU for manufacturing steel products. Petitioner’s unit originally operated under Notification No. 56/2002-CE, providing a 10-year excise duty exemption. It later undertook a 25% substantial expansion, commencing new production on May 26, 2015, under Notification No. 01/2010-CE. Post the implementation of the GST, the government replaced exemptions with “Budgetary Support.” Central Notification No. 10(1)/2017-DBA-II/NER dated 05.10.2017 provided a 58% reimbursement of CGST & 29% of IGST post the utilization of ITC, while State Notifications (SRO 519 & 521) provided the remaining 42% reimbursement of the Central paid tax. The Petitioner applied for reimbursement for several periods between 2018 and 2021. The State Tax Officer rejected claims related to the sale of M.S. Scrap (edge cuttings of TMT bars) via an order dated July 1, 2022
The Petitioner argued that M.S. Scrap (edge cuttings of TMT/CTD Bars) is not “waste” but manufactured products that undergo the exact same heating and rolling process as standard TMT bars of TMT/CTD Bars and these edge cuttings are marketable finished products, distinct from the raw materials. The Petitioner further contended that the Central Tax Authorities have already granted reimbursement and the State reimbursement should follow Central clearance. Whereas, the Respondents on the other hand contended that the unit is registered to manufacture TMT Bars, not scrap. Thus, the scrap isn’t a permitted good. The Scrap herein is merely a residue or byproduct, not the primary “specified Good” intended for manufacture. Further, the Budgetary support is strictly limited to goods listed in the registration and not excluded by Annexure-A.
The Hon’ble High Court herein analyzed Annexure-A of SRO 519, which lists 18 excluded categories (e.g., tobacco, bricks, soft drinks). Since M.S. Scrap is not listed in the exclusionary Annexure, it cannot be arbitrarily excluded by the authorities. The High Court further observed that since the scrap undergoes the identical manufacturing process as the primary goods (TMT bars) and is a necessary residue of that process, it retains the essential character of the manufactured goods. The Hon’ble High Court noted that the State’s definition of an “Eligible Unit” is dependent on the Central Notification. Rejection by the State after Central approval was deemed unjustified. Thus, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the rejection order dated July 1, 2022. The Court declared that the respondent was not justified in refusing reimbursement for M.S. Scrap. The Hon’ble High Court directed Respondent (State Tax Officer) to re-examine the claim in light of the Court’s observations and pass a reasoned order within one month.
KOMAL JAYESHBHAI HEMAVAT VS. STATE TAX OFFICER (4) & ANR. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6209 OF 2024 (Gujarat High Court)
The petitioner is a registered taxpayer under the Gujarat GST Act, 2017. The petitioner’s premises were raided and books of accounts were seized by authorities. On 21.09.2023 a Show Cause Notice was issued in Form GST DRC 01. On 21.11.2023 the petitioner filed a reply in the Form DRC-06, but specifically selected “No” in the box regarding the desire for a Personal Hearing. On 30.12.2023 the respondent passed an adverse order under Section 74 of the GST Act without conducting a personal hearing.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act cannot be overridden by a taxpayer’s choice in a form. The said provision requires the authority to grant an opportunity for a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The Court cited the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and emphasized that a fair hearing is an essential ingredient of any unbiased proceeding. The court referred to M/s. Yadav Trailor Transport Co. Vs. Union of India, noting that procedural fairness requires providing multiple opportunities (up to three adjournments/four dates) before concluding a matter ex-parte. Thus, the Writ Petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 30.12.2023 was quashed and set aside.
MUNTAJIR ART WORKS VS. STATE OF UP & ANOTHER WRIT TAX NO. 1756 OF 2026 (Allahabad High Court)
In the present case, an adjudication order dated 23.08.2024 has been passed by the Respondent against the petitioner. However, the Respondent herein didn’t take the note of the reply submitted on 30.05.2024 by the Petitioner. The Petitioner further submitted that the adjudication order dated 23.08.2024 wasn’t served on the Petitioner.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court noted that the calling for a counter affidavit or even keeping the petition pending would serve no purpose as the adjudicating authority didn’t even considered the Petitioner’s filed reply. Thus, the adjudication order dated 23.08.2024 was set aside and the Hon’ble High Court remitted the Adjudication authority to pass a fresh Order in accordance with the law. The Hon’ble Court further granted the petitioner to file additional reply and directed the authority may fix any hearing date with at least 15 day advance notice.
AVIK TELEVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. OFFICE OF THE GST OFFICER WARD 71 WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 2339 OF 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Petitioner herein a company involved in trading and exporting of branded mobile phones. A special audit was conducted for the Financial Year 2021-2022 under Section 66 of the GST Act. The Respondent issued an Order-in-Original (OIO) on December 31, 2025, confirming a demand of ₹26,72,64,497. On Saturday, December 27, 2025, at 5:20 PM, the Respondent issued “Reminder-1,” requiring additional voluminous documents by Monday, December 29, and a personal hearing on December 30.
The Petitioner argued that less than one effective working day was given to collate documents, denying a meaningful hearing. They also claimed parallel proceedings were impermissible and the OIO was self-contradictory compared to a previous order where they were discharged. Whereas, the Respondent contended that the petition was not maintainable because an alternate remedy (appeal under Section 107) exists. They argued the two SCNs were distinct, based on different transactions unearthed during the Special Audit.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the opportunity for a hearing must be real, reasonable, and effective, not a mere formality. Providing less than one working day for voluminous records made the opportunity “illusory”. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noted that passing substantial liability order on the same day the hearing concluded suggested that the material was not adequately considered. Furthermore, the High Court ruled that the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when natural justice is violated. Thus, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed the OIO dated December 31, 2025, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the authority on April 6, 2026, with their arguments and documents.
MANOBENDRA GHOSHAL VS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST DELHI & ANR, APL/8/PB/2026 (GSTAT Delhi)
(Note: Appeal transferred to appropriate Bench for final disposal as the substance of the case doesn’t justify the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of GSTAT)
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi, held that a procedural error specifically in Form APL-05, wrongly indicating that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench should not result in dismissal or withdrawal of the appeal when the substance of the case does not justify such jurisdiction. Recognizing the hardship caused to appellants due to such technical mistakes, the Tribunal emphasized that justice should not be denied on procedural grounds and directed that corrective administrative measures be preferred over penal consequences. The Tribunal clarified that the case did not involve issues requiring exclusive consideration by the Principal Bench, thereby affirming that it rightfully falls within the jurisdiction of the Delhi State Bench.
To ensure efficiency and avoid duplication of effort, the Tribunal directed the Registry to facilitate a seamless online transfer of the appeal to the appropriate State Bench, in coordination with GSTN and NIC technical teams. A strict caution was issued to the Registry, GSTN, and NIC, stating that any failure to implement the seamless transfer mechanism would be viewed as an obstruction to the administration of justice, underscoring accountability in procedural handling.
BHARAT KUMAR AGARWAL V. JOINT COMMISSIONER (AE), WRIT PETITION NOS. 9166 AND 9354 OF 2026 (Telangana High Court)
The Petitioners herein are Mr. Bharat Kumar Agarwal (Managing Director) and M/s. Sugna Metal Limited. A show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01) was issued on June 27, 2025 to both the petitioners. An Order-in-Original dated December 30, 2025 and a summary order (Form GST DRC-07) dated December 31, 2025 were issued in a composite manner, imposing a combined tax and penalty liability.
The petitioner argued that the composite order prevented the Managing Director from appealing. They also contended that the original show cause notice did not specify separate charges against the Managing Director, depriving him of a fair opportunity to reply. Whereas, the Respondents cited Rule 16A of the CGST (Amendment) Rules, 2025 stating the Proper Officer could grant a temporary registration to the Managing Director so he could file an appeal. They agreed to issue two separate revised Form GST DRC-07 orders.
The Hon’ble Telangana High Court held that Managing Director is entitled to a remedy of appeal after obtaining a temporary registration. The MD must apply for a temporary registration number within one week, and the authority must issue it within the following week. The Court directed the authorities to issue two separate revised Form GST DRC-07 orders one for the company and one for the MD within two weeks. Crucially, the Hon’ble High Court ruled that the period of limitation for filing the appeals will only start running after the issuance of these fresh orders. Both writ petitions were disposed of without the Court ruling on the merits of the underlying tax dispute.
LEIGHTON INDIA CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS, D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4042 OF 2026 (Rajasthan High Court)
The Petitioner is a company based in Udaipur, Rajasthan. The petitioner company was previously registered in Tamil Nadu but failed to file its GST returns there. Consequently, its registration in that state was affected (either cancelled or put in abeyance). The petitioner applied for a new GST registration in the State of Rajasthan under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Petitioner herein argued that GST registration in Rajasthan should not be denied solely because returns were not filed in Tamil Nadu. They contended that the failure to comply with tax obligations in one state should not act as a bar to obtaining registration in a different state.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court observed that the CGST Act, 2017, runs parallel to the State GST Acts. The legal framework is both “State-centric” and “Central-centric”. It was further observed that if a company fails to follow the law and do not submit returns in a state where it is already registered, it is considered a “defaulter”. The High Court held that a company cannot be allowed to bypass its existing legal obligations by moving applications for registration in new states instead of rectifying its defaults in the previous state. Furthermore, a company that is a defaulter under the Act in one jurisdiction is liable to be denied registration in other states to maintain the integrity of the tax system. Thus, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner’s arguments.
NIRVANA INFRA-DEVELOPERS LLP VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 7888 OF 2026 (Bombay High Court)
In the present Matter, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has come down heavily over the Joint Commissioner of State Tax who attached all bank accounts of Petitioner without recording any opinion on necessity of attachment as required by Radha Krishan Industries judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. This attachment happened on 23.1.2026. Petitioner immediately filed objections on 30.1.2026 and drew attention of said Joint Commissioner to the judgment in Radha Krishan Industries. Thereafter to arm twist the Petitioner to pay entire tax voluntarily, the Joint Commissioner neither decided the objections for next two months, nor was the order withdrawn. Furthermore, the Joint Commissioner did not decide on the offer of alternate security of immovable property and instead continued the attachment. The Hon’ble High Court held that this is an affront to the rule of law in the country and held that this is a coercive tactic and live death of Petitioner’s business was caused. Costs of Rs.25000 was imposed on the Joint Commissioner for her conduct in openly flouting the binding precedents and the attachment orders were quashed.
However, most importantly, the Hon’ble Court also accepted argument of Petitioner that adjudication proceedings are deliberately not being commenced, the Hon’ble Court directed that if there is any tangible material to proceed against Petitioner, a Show Cause Notice may be issued to Petitioner for recovery of tax not later than 6 weeks from date of order.
G.B. TRADERS V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. WRIT PETITION NO. 8990 OF 2025, (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay HC held that cancellation of GST registration and rejection of the revocation application were invalid as the show cause notices (SCNs) and orders were vague, non-speaking, and issued mechanically without proper application of mind or consideration of the Assessee’s replies and circumstances. The Hon’ble High Court noted that the assessee had continued filing GST returns and explained that business operations were temporarily affected due to the proprietor’s serious illness (Stage V chronic kidney disease), which constituted a bona fide reason rather than evidence of non-existence of business. It was observed that the authorities relied solely on a field visit indicating non-operational status without evaluating the Assessee’s response that business was genuine but temporarily halted, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court emphasized that SCNs must be specific and capable of eliciting an effective response, and orders must contain clear reasoning; failure to do so renders the entire proceeding legally unsustainable. Relying on precedent, the Court ruled that quashing such defective orders results in automatic restoration of GST registration, and reiterated that mechanical exercise of drastic powers affecting civil rights is impermissible in law.
GST UPDATES-
- Effective April 1, 2025, ISD registration (Governed under Section 20 of CGST Act & Rule 39 of CGST Rules) is mandatoryfor distributing ITC of common input services from third parties.
Must file GSTR-6 by the 13th of the following month. ITC is distributed pro-rata based on the turnover of the recipient branches during the relevant period (previous FY or last quarter).
A penalty of ₹10,000 or the amount of irregular ITC distributed (whichever is higher) under Section 122(1)(ix).
Interest: Recovery of wrongly distributed credit with interest at 18% p.a.
Formula- C1= (t1/T) * C
- C1:Credit distributed to a specific recipient unit.
- C:Total ITC available for distribution.
- t1:Turnover of that specific recipient unit during the “relevant period.”
- T:Aggregate turnover of all recipients to whom the credit is attributable.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, through the Commercial Taxes Department, has issued Circular No. 3/2026 dated March 17, 2026, introducing comprehensive guidelines for conducting personal hearings in GST appeals through virtual mode. This initiative marks a significant step towards digitization and ease of compliance in tax administration.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN APRIL 2026 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Mar, 2026) Apr 20th, 2026
| GSTR-3B (Jan-Mar, 2026) Apr 22nd, 24th, 2026 | GSTR-5 (Mar, 2026) Apr 13th, 2026
| GSTR-5A (Mar, 2026) Apr 20th, 2026
|
GSTR-1 (Mar, 2026) Apr 11th, 2026 | GSTR-1 (Jan-Mar, 2026) Apr 13th, 2026 | GSTR-6 (Mar, 2026) Apr 13th, 2026 | GSTR-7 (Mar, 2026) Apr 10th, 2026 |
IFF (Optional) (Mar,2026) NA
| CMP-08 (Jan-Mar, 2026) Apr 18th, 2026
| GSTR-8 (Mar, 2026) Apr 10th, 2026
| RFD-10 2 years from the last day of the quarter in which supply was received |
Disclaimer: Pursuant to the Bar Council of India rules, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. You, the reader acknowledges that there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this newsletter. The information provided in this newsletter is solely available at your request and is for informational purposes only, it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advisement. We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the reader relying on material/ information provided in the newsletter. In cases where the reader has any legal issues, he/she must in all cases seek independent legal advice. Any information obtained or materials used from this newsletter is completely at the reader’s volition and any transmission, receptor use of the contents of this newsletter would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
© 1981-2026 Sharnam Legal, All rights reserved