Seeks to amend Notification No 9/2025 - Central tax (Rate) to align them with changes made vide Finance Act, 2026

Seeks to amend Notification No 9/2025 - Integrated tax (Rate) to align them with changes made vide Finance Act, 2026?

Seeks to amend Notification No 9/2025 - Union Territory ?tax (Rate) to align them with changes made vide Finance Act, 2026?

A complaint was filed against a real estate developer for not passing on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) after the introduction of GST, as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act.

The Bombay High Court held that GST is not leviable on affiliation fees collected by a statutory university from affiliated colleges. The Court ruled that granting affiliation is a statutory and regulatory function under the Universities Act, not a commercial or business activity. Hence, such activity does not qualify as “supply” under Section 7 of the CGST Act and cannot be taxed under Section 9. The Court further held that issuance of show cause notice under Section 74 itself lacked jurisdiction. Accordingly, GST demand, interest, and penalty were quashed and the petition was allowed.

The Delhi High Court held that writ petition challenging rejection of GST refund is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy under Section 112 is available. The Court observed that the petitioner was granted adequate opportunity of hearing at both adjudication and appellate stages, and the grievance related to correctness of findings rather than violation of natural justice. It emphasized that errors in exercise of jurisdiction do not amount to lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226 and directed the petitioner to avail appellate remedy before GSTAT.

The Gauhati High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without assigning reasons in the order is invalid and violative of principles of natural justice. The Court observed that even if the assessee fails to respond to the show cause notice or appear for hearing, the proper officer must pass a speaking order in compliance with Rule 22 and Form GST REG-19. A non-speaking order reflects non-application of mind and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned cancellation order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the stage of show cause notice, granting the assessee opportunity to respond or regularize defaults.

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.