The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that supply of solar power generating systems is taxable under the 70:30 valuation mechanism prescribed in relevant GST notifications, even when separate invoices are issued for goods and services. The Court observed that the notifications create a legal fiction deeming 70% of value as goods (taxable at 5%) and 30% as services (taxable at 18%). The department’s attempt to levy 18% GST on the entire supply was held incorrect. Accordingly, the assessment order was quashed and the petitioner’s tax liability was upheld as per the prescribed composite valuation mechanism.

The assessee assailed GST assessment orders on the ground that they lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN)/RFN, rendering them invalid. The revenue opposed the writ as delayed, arguing that service was completed by uploading the orders on the GST portal under section 169(1)(d). The High Court followed its earlier rulings that absence of DIN vitiates the orders, set aside the assessments, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.

The assessee assailed GST assessment orders dated 02.02.2025 and 05.02.2025 as invalid for want of the assessing officer’s signature. The revenue opposed on delay, claiming service through GST portal upload under section 169(1)(d). Relying on earlier High Court rulings that signature is mandatory and not cured by sections 160/169, the court set aside the unsigned orders and remanded for fresh assessment with hearing, subject to deposit of 20% of disputed tax and setting aside coercive recovery.

The assessee assailed a GST assessment order dated 08.12.2023 as void because it lacked the assessing officer’s signature. The revenue objected on delay, contending service was effected by uploading the order on the GST portal under section 169(1)(d). Following earlier Andhra Pradesh High Court rulings that an unsigned assessment order is invalid and not curable under sections 160/169, the court set aside the order and remanded for fresh assessment, subject to deposit of 20% of disputed

The assessee assailed cancellation of its GST registration dated 05.09.2024 for non-filing of returns. Relying on a coordinate bench ruling in similar facts, the assessee sought liberty to file an application for revocation of cancellation. The revenue did not object to disposal on the same terms. The High Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, permitting the assessee to apply for revocation with pending returns and payment of unpaid tax, interest and penalty, to be decided by the competent authority within the stipulated time.

The writ petition sought refund of GST deducted from the assessee’s security deposit on purchase of rejected wheat and paddy seeds in 2017. The assessee claimed no GST was payable as the rejected seeds were not sold in unit containers under a registered brand name, and the corporation admitted the amount was refundable but awaited refund from the tax department. The Court held the department could not retain the amount and directed filing of refund in Form RFD-01 under Rule 89, followed by immediate refund and onward payment to the assessee.

Heard learned counsel Mr. B. Chowdhury for the petitioner Bahadur Islam, who has filed this application under Section 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 528 of the BNSS praying for setting aside and quashing the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) in connection with CGST.93/GST/2025-26, seeking zimma of the seized articles (a) Laptop (Avita Company) along with its charger, (b) iphone – 15 plus along with its charger, (c) Samsung S21 Mobile handset along with its charger and (d) personal documents such as cheque books of HDFC, SBI etc., office documents etc.

The assessee challenged a GST demand/order in Form DRC-07 dated 12.09.2024 issued after a summary show cause notice in Form DRC-01, alleging denial of input tax credit without considering its detailed reply and documents. The High Court recorded that the reply/documents were not considered while passing DRC-07. Accordingly, it set aside the DRC-07 order and directed the competent authority to reconsider the objections and documents and pass a speaking order within the stipulated time.

The assessee challenged state GST proceedings initiated through DRC-01A (intimation) and DRC-01 (show cause) for FY 2022-23, alleging non-consideration of its replies/documents supporting input tax credit and raising procedural and jurisdictional objections; it did not press its constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c). The High Court disposed of the writ by directing the competent authority to accept and consider fresh objections with documents within 30 days and to pass a speaking order within six weeks thereafter, else proceed according to law.

The GST Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Principal Bench, held that the respondent builder had profiteered by not fully passing on the additional Input Tax Credit benefit accrued under the GST regime to homebuyers as mandated under section 171 of the CGST Act. After reconsideration, the DGAP revised the profiteered amount to Rs. 71.37 lakh excluding GST. The Tribunal upheld inclusion of ITC on input services in profiteering computation and ruled that benefit passed through price adjustment constituted valid compliance. The respondent was directed to refund the profiteered amount along with GST and 18% interest. Penalty proceedings under section 171(3A) were also held to be attracted.

The assessee filed a writ challenging rejection of its GST refund claim under Section 54 as time-barred. Although it replied to the show cause notice and requested a virtual personal hearing, the department passed the rejection order without fixing any hearing date. The revenue argued that a hearing date was mentioned in the notice and that an appeal under Section 107 was available. The High Court held that the CGST Rules require an opportunity of hearing before rejecting a refund and quashed the order, remitting the matter for fresh decision

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.