Recent Judicial Developments in GST- Part one.

I am prompted to start this series covering pronouncements of High Courts as well as GSTAT benches covering orders dated on or after 01/09/2026. I see that there is a surge in number of such orders available in the public domain and as many may not have access to all such pronouncements, I wish to spread the message so as to benefit all concerned.

Case 1: 100% pre deposit under protest: The taxpayer, based at Uttar Pradesh has paid the entire tax under protest but still wanted to file the appeal. As the tax demand amount in the system showed NIL, due to technical reasons, the appeal could not be filed. This issue came up before the Allahabad High Court and the High Court has taken necessary initiatives to settle this issue so that all the affected taxpayers on similar circumstances stand benefited. The GSTN issued advisory on 07/09/2026 as "Enabling Filing of Appeals in Cases Involving NIL or Zero Demand Amount - reg. Sep 7th, 2026 In cases where a dispute regarding liability exists but the demand amount is reflected as "NIL" or "Zero" in the demand order, and payment has been made by the taxpayer prior to the issuance of the demand order, the previous validation restricting the filing of an appeal against such demand orders has been removed from the GST Portal. Accordingly, taxpayers are now enabled to file an appeal in Form GST APL-01 against demand orders reflecting a NIL or Zero demand amount. Taxpayers facing the above issue may now file an appeal in Form GST APL-01 against such demand orders. In case of any query or difficulty while filing the appeal, taxpayers may raise a ticket with the GST Helpdesk for assistance. Thanks, Team GSTN".

This is a recent developments and the taxpayers who wish to play safe may pay the entire taxes and try the appeal whereas others may continue to pay only 10% as pre deposit of the disputed GST.

Case Reference: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3371 of 2026 M/S Sky Texpros Private Ltd .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

The OIO was passed on 31/12/2025 which was modified on 23/03/2026. The taxpayer paid the entire tax under protest but still wanted to go on appeal in the case. The rest is self- explanatory from the above order dated 10/09/2026. [Ms/S Sky Texpros Private Ltd. Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others - 2026 (9) TMI 944 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

Case 2: Do not ignore the documents furnished: The High Court at Lucknow passed orders on 03/09/2026 in the matter of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1114 of 2026 Rambabu And Another .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) [Rambabu And Another Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. And Another - 2026 (9) TMI 638 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

The owner of the goods appeared before proper officer and furnished the copies of invoices, e way bills etc in support of his claim that invocation of sub section 3 of section 129 of the CGST Act in the case was unwarranted. However, the tax authorities did not consider such submissions and levied huge penalty. The operative portion of the High Court order reads as

"8. In light of the same, we are of the view that since the owner has appeared and produced the e-way bill, e-tax invoice and bilty, the same ought to be considered by the authority in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside, with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the documents produced by the petitioner No.2, who claims to be the owner of the goods, in accordance with law.

10. It may be kept in mind that the issue mentioned at serial No.6 of Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, shall also be taken into consideration".

Lesson from case one: A taxpayer may wish to play in abundant caution and pay the taxes under protest. This does not anyway bar him from preferring the first or second appeal as the case may be. The order reads as

"9. Copy of this order may be communicated to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) for issuance of necessary administrative instruction/circular as may facilitate filing of appeals by all assesses, who may be facing the same predicament.

10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) through Registrar (Compliance).

11. The efforts made by the GSTN and prompt resolution offered is Appreciated".

Lesson from case two: The officers during the first nine years have been enjoying the freedom to pass orders as they deem fit as there was no mechanism to check whether such orders stand the test of time to withstand as sustained without being quashed or set aside. Things have completely changed drastically and imposing cost on the erring tax officer is now happening as may be seen from Citation: Hind Maha Mineral LLP Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Goods and Services Tax, Mumbai and Others. - 2026 (9) TMI 800 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

The good time has started for the tax payers as well as tax professionals as more and more complex issues on GST are settling at either Tribunal or High Court. Interestingly, Section 74 invocation only in a proper manner has settled at supreme court recently. Hence, even at the time of reply to show cause notice, all the latest judicial developments may be elaborated appropriately to strengthen the taxpayer case.