Fact of the Case:  The petitioner, Excel Polymers, is a registered taxpayer under the CGST/KSGST Acts. An assessment order for FY 2018-19 denied the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed for the period from November 2018 to March 2019. The assessing authority held that the petitioner had failed to furnish the relevant GST returns within the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and therefore became ineligible to claim ITC.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court contending that after the insertion of Section 16(5) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, the benefit of ITC stood restored where returns relating to FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21 were furnished on or before 30.11.2021. The petitioner demonstrated that the returns for November 2018 to March 2019 had been filed between 29.10.2019 and 04.01.2020, which was well before the statutory cut-off date under Section 16(5). Therefore, denial of ITC solely on the basis of Section 16(4) was contrary to the amended legal position.

Held by court : The Kerala High Court observed that the assessment order itself recorded that the petitioner had filed all the relevant returns between October 2019 and January 2020. Since these returns were filed before 30.11.2021, the petitioner satisfied the conditions prescribed under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. Therefore, the benefit granted by the amended provision could not be denied merely by relying upon the earlier limitation under Section 16(4).
Accordingly, the Court quashed the assessment order to the extent it denied ITC for the relevant tax periods. The matter was remanded to the State Tax Officer with a direction to reconsider the claim and grant the benefit of Input Tax Credit in accordance with Section 16(5), subject to the petitioner fulfilling all other statutory conditions for admissibility of ITC.

Fact of the Case:  The petitioner, Ind-korosho Exim, challenged the assessment order passed in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 22.08.2024 under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act for the financial year 2019-20. The impugned order imposed penalty on the petitioner for failure to maintain statutory books of account and prescribed records relating to production, manufacture, inward and outward supplies, stock, input tax credit and output tax liability. The petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking quashing of the order on the ground that it was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the GST Act.

The principal dispute before the Court was whether, after the levy of late fee under Section 47 of the GST Act for delayed filing of returns, the department could additionally impose penalty under Section 122(1)(xvi) for failure to maintain books of account. The petitioner argued that both levies could not be imposed simultaneously, whereas the department maintained that the two provisions deal with distinct defaults and therefore operate independently.

Held by court : The Madras High Court held that Section 47 deals exclusively with late fee for delayed filing of statutory returns under Sections 37, 39, 44 and 45 of the GST Act. In contrast, Section 122 prescribes penalties for various independent violations, including failure to keep, maintain or retain books of account and documents in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the two provisions address different statutory obligations.
The Court observed that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was specifically for failure to maintain statutory records concerning production, manufacture, stock, inward and outward supplies, ITC availed and output tax details, which squarely falls within Section 122(1)(xvi). Finding no legal infirmity in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the penalty imposed by the tax authorities.

Fact of the Case:  The petitioner, Sodexo India Services Private Limited, challenged an Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act whereby GST demand of approximately ₹8.75 crore along with interest and penalty was confirmed on eleven audit issues. The principal dispute related to the allegation that catering services and sale of pre-packaged food products constituted a composite supply taxable at 18% GST. During the audit and adjudication proceedings, the petitioner submitted replies to the Audit Memo, Additional Audit Memo and Show Cause Notice along with agreements, invoices, reconciliations and other documentary evidence. Personal hearings were also granted before passing the adjudication order.
The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court directly under Article 226 contending that the adjudicating authority failed to properly consider its replies and ought to have called for additional documents before passing the order. It alleged violation of principles of natural justice and challenged the decision-making process instead of the merits of the tax demand. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an effective statutory appeal was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Held by court : The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner had been granted adequate opportunity throughout the adjudication proceedings by way of audit notices, show cause notice, submission of replies, production of documentary evidence and personal hearings. The principles of natural justice do not require the adjudicating authority to repeatedly seek additional documents once sufficient opportunity has already been afforded. Questions regarding sufficiency of evidence, appreciation of replies and correctness of findings are matters to be examined by the appellate authority under Section 107.

The Court further held that mere allegations of non-consideration of replies or improper appreciation of evidence do not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction. Since no violation of natural justice, jurisdictional error or other recognised exception was established, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file a statutory appeal. The period spent before the High Court was directed to be excluded while considering limitation for filing the appeal.

Fact of the Case:  The petitioners developed Information Technology Parks and leased commercial office premises to various software companies. Along with the leased premises, they provided several facilities and amenities such as centralized air-conditioning, DG power, electrical sub-station, sewage treatment plant, lifts, kitchen, cafeteria, furniture, fixtures, transformers and other infrastructure. The entire consideration received from tenants was treated by the petitioners as rent on which service tax had already been discharged. The petitioners contended that these amenities were only incidental to the leasing service and that effective possession and control of such facilities always remained with them.

The Commercial Tax Department held that the rent attributable to furniture, fixtures and movable amenities represented a transfer of the right to use goods and therefore constituted a deemed sale taxable under the APVAT Act and Section 5E of the APGST Act. The authorities bifurcated the composite lease rentals and levied VAT on the rental attributable to movable assets. Aggrieved by the assessment, appellate and revisional orders, the petitioners approached the High Court challenging the levy on the ground that there was no transfer of the right to use goods and that the transaction remained a composite service contract

Held by court : The High Court held that levy under Section 5E of the APGST Act is attracted only when there is a genuine transfer of the right to use goods. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and other precedents, the Court observed that the essential ingredients of transfer of the right to use goods—identifiable goods, consensus regarding the goods, legal right to use, exclusive possession and control, and inability of the owner to simultaneously transfer the same rights to others—were absent in the present case. The lease agreements merely permitted the tenants to enjoy common facilities while effective possession and control continued to remain with the landlords.

The Court further held that common amenities such as lifts, cafeteria, sewage system and other facilities were shared by several tenants and therefore could never be exclusively delivered to any particular lessee. Since the transaction was essentially one of leasing immovable property coupled with incidental facilities and not a transfer of the right to use goods, the impugned assessments were unsustainable. Accordingly, all writ petitions and the tax revision case were allowed, the impugned orders were quashed and the lease rentals relating to furniture, equipment and other movable amenities were held not liable to tax under the APGST Act.

• Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India
• Section 5E of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
• Section 2(q) of the APGST Act
• Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005