The Andhra Pradesh High Court partly set aside a GST adjudication order levying tax at 18% on infrastructure road works executed by the assessee. The Court held that in light of a certificate issued by the Industrial Area Local Authority (IALA) treating the roads as public roads, the issue of applicable tax rate requires fresh examination. The assessment is remanded to reconsider levy of tax on road works, while other components are left undisturbed.

The Delhi High Court held that CENVAT credit lying in the electronic credit ledger after transition to the GST regime can be utilised for making mandatory pre-deposit while filing appeals before CESTAT in service tax matters. The Court observed that pre-deposit is nothing but payment of a portion of disputed tax, interest or penalty. A conjoint reading of Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 142 of the CGST Rules permits use of such credit through Form DRC-03. CBIC instructions restricting such utilisation are held unsustainable. Consequently, rejection of appeal by CESTAT for non-payment of pre-deposit is set aside and restoration is directed.

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order and subsequent rectification order where the adjudicating authority mechanically proceeded on the assumption that no reply was filed, despite the assessee having submitted a reply by email and on the GST portal. Holding that non-consideration of the reply amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, the Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving the challenge to limitation-extension notifications open.

Exemption Application is allowed.

Sri P. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel represents M/s. P.V. Prasad Associates, for the petitioner. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appears for respondent No.3.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned assessment orders dated 29.09.2025 passed by the respondent.

Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of SLP, granting liberty to pursue statutory GST appeal under Section 107 of the Act 2017.

The Madras High Court quashed GST orders reversing input tax credit solely on limitation under section 16(4). Relying on retrospective insertion of section 16(5) pursuant to GST Council recommendations and Finance Act (No.2) of 2024, the Court held that ITC availed through GSTR-3B up to 30.11.2021 for earlier years was valid. Consequential recovery actions and bank attachments are directed to be withdrawn.

The Allahabad High Court disposed of GST writ petitions filed due to non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal. Following constitution and operationalisation of the Tribunal, the Court permitted assessees to file appeals under section 112 within the extended time, without limitation objections, treating earlier deposits as statutory pre-deposit.

The Allahabad High Court set aside the suspension of a State Tax Officer accused of lapses in GST registration verification. The Court held that the officer had submitted an adverse inspection report and subsequent inaction was attributable to the Assistant Commissioner. Continuation of suspension is held unwarranted, though disciplinary inquiry is permitted.

For easy reference to gather the substratum of the dispute, the order dated 31.10.2025 and the order dated 20.11.2025 are extracted hereunder:

The Allahabad High Court dealt with a writ challenging cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner claimed late knowledge of the cancellation order. The Court held that limitation for appeal would run from the date of knowledge and, applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal without limitation objection.