DGAP initially reported profiteering of Rs.28.74 lakh, later revised to Rs.4,57,683 for the period 15.11.2017–30.06.2019. The assessee accepted the profiteered amount but disputed liability to interest and penalty. The Tribunal examined Rule 133(3)(c) as amended by Notification 31/2019 and, relying on Vatika Township (SC), held the amendment imposing 18% interest is prospective from 01.04.2020. Since the investigation period preceded the amendment, neither interest nor penalty was leviable. Only the profiteered amount must be deposited.

. Both the learned counsel took us through the relevant materials on record which included few passages from the show cause notice, the relevant provision of law including the relevant pleadings.

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 5.2.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade02(Appeal)-II, State Tax, Moradabad, (Respondent No.1) U/s 74 of GST ACT 2017 in GST Appeal No. 0104/2023, for tax period June, 2021 for the year 2021-2022 and the order dated 20.12.2022 passed U/s 74 of GST Act, 2017, by the Respondent No.2, and further directing respondents not to initiate recovery of tax (IGST) of Rs. 4,17,997/-, Interest of Rs. 1,06,589/- and Penalty of Rs. 4,17,997/-, totaling to Rs. 9,42,584/- in pursuance to the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Moradabad Sector-1, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner sought refund of unutilised ITC for November 2023, which remained unprocessed despite statutory timelines under Section 54(7). After the writ was filed, the department issued an SCN citing supplier’s high ITC utilisation. Refund is finally sanctioned, but without interest. The Court directed payment of the refund along with statutory interest within one month.

- The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled retrospectively from 01.07.2017 for non-filing of returns during COVID-19, and the appellate authority rejected the appeal as time-barred. Relying on Anil Soni and Ganpati Polymers, the petitioner argued that retrospective cancellation has severe unintended consequences and that delay is justified. The High Court held that, in writ jurisdiction, limitation could be relaxed. The cancellation appeal is revived, retrospective cancellation order set aside, and matter remanded for decision on merits after personal hearing.

The Chhattisgarh High Court entertained the first bail application of the applicant accused of creating bogus GST firms, issuing fake invoices/E-way bills, and availing fraudulent ITC exceeding Rs.23 crore. Despite allegations of economic offence, the Court noted that the complaint had already been filed and the applicant had remained in custody since 08.08.2025. Considering ongoing investigation and likely delay in trial, regular bail is granted on the applicant furnishing requisite bond and surety

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsels representing the respondents.

- The Gauhati High Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST/AGST Act, which links Input Tax Credit entitlement to the supplier’s uploading of invoices in GSTR-1. The Court held that denying ITC to a bona fide purchaser due to a supplier’s non-compliance imposes an inequitable burden and defeats GST’s objective of avoiding tax cascading. While not striking down the provision, the Court read it down to protect genuine purchase

ITC mismatches: Dealing with GSTR-2B vs books differences

Cancellation of Registration by Department - Circumstances and Precautions

GSTR-9 is the annual return capturing yearly purchases, sales, ITC, refunds, and demands, while GSTR-9C is a reconciliation statement applicable where aggregate turnover exceeds the prescribed threshold, reconciling books with GST returns. Common reporting mistakes include mismatch of ITC across years, incorrect reversal or reclaim reporting, differences between GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and books, wrong RCM disclosure, errors in exempt/NIL supplies, and incorrect tax payment reporting. ITC claimed, reversed, and reclaimed in the same financial year must be carefully split across Tables 6, 7, and 6H to avoid duplication caused by auto-population from GSTR-3B. ITC of a previous year claimed in the current year is reported separately in Table 6A1, but ITC reclaimed due to Rule 37/37A follows different reporting logic and should not be mixed with normal reclaims. ITC claimed in a later year for invoices or imports relating to earlier years is reflected in Table 8C or newly inserted import-related rows, ensuring no mismatch between eligible and claimed credit. Reversal of earlier-year ITC made in the current year is not reported in GSTR-9 of the current year, as Table 7 captures only reversals relating to the same financial year. In GSTR-9C, differences in net ITC reconciliation may arise due to timing differences; such mismatches should be properly explained in the reconciliation difference table to avoid audit objections. Table 9 of GSTR-9 reflects only tax actually paid through GSTR-3B during the year; interest, late fees, penalties, and post-annual-return DRC-03 payments must not be included.

Odisha Livelihoods Mission, Chatrapur, Odisha