TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
28 Oct 2026 
There is a ray of hope for all taxpayers of GST all over India from the 529 final orders passed by the GSTAT during the last few months. The message is loud and clear that litigation is unavoidable, even on a well drafted legislation. The legislature has an intention behind each and every section and it would not be possible to write the intention as well along with the sections. That is why interpretation must be most appropriate one and should not be biased neither towards taxpayer nor the Revenue. The Government requires income for all development works as well as even for administering the country safe from all the possible threats. However, the taxes must be collected exactly in line with the extant legal provisions and not as per the whims and fancies of the tax officials.
In the previous three articles we have observed that that the establishment as well as functioning of the benches of GSTAT has given huge and substantial relief to all the taxpayers all over India. The huge, abnormal as well as the avoidable delay in setting up the GSTAT has caused extensive damage to the taxpayers and now as GSTAT in place, taxpayer must be prepared for litigation up to GSTAT with the help of GST Professionals. Hence, in order to spread the awareness amongst all stakeholders, three cases published in taxtmi.com during last one week are selected for critical examination of the same to demonstrate that taxpayers are benefitted by litigation.
Case 1: Satyendra Kumar Singh Versus Peoples Honda. - 2026 (10) TMI 1628 - GSTAT AGRA. Appellant -Revenue against Peoples Honda, a dealer of two wheelers. This is one of the most interesting case wherein a demand was proposed under section 73 based on GST Return differences and the issue was settled for the financial year 2017-18 upon payment of applicable taxes. Despite this, a fresh show cause notice was issued again for the very same tax period invoking section 74 to propose tax, interest as well as equal penalty on incentives as well as discounts received from the manufacturer of two wheelers. This is simply impermissible due to the fact that all facts were available before adjudicating officer during proceedings under section 73 itself and there was absolutely no suppression from the taxpayer side. By invoking 74 on the same tax period of completed proceedings under section 73, the tax officer admits his failure to completely go through all the facts available on record.
The Tribunal has accordingly ruled that in view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the subordinate officers without adequate investigation are worthy of being set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order and the adjudication order are set aside. The case is remanded to the Adjudicating Officer with the direction to conduct a detailed investigation as above, and examine the records presented by the taxpayer before the Tribunal and at the first appeal level, and pass appropriate orders in light of the directions given in point number 21 and 22 and 23.
Case 2: GP MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX LUCKNOW & ORS. - 2026 (10) TMI 1370 - GSTAT PRAYAGRAJ in the matter of GP Motors Private Limited. The core issue was non generation of e way bill for internal stock transfers. It is gathered that the Assistant Commissioner did not follow the mandatory procedure and did not issue Forms GST MOV-07 and MOV-09 in the prescribed format. Moreover, it is a settled position of law that where a statute confers a power and prescribes the manner of its exercise, the power must be exercised in that manner or not at all. Accordingly, it was argued that the penalty order is therefore legally invalid.
Accordingly the bench has ruled that Appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned orders Order-in-Appeal No. ZD090725239105A dated 24.07.2025 and Order-in-Original No. ZD090525032186D dated 05.05.2025 are set aside.
The penalty of Rs. 1,96,000 is quashed. The appellant is entitled to a refund of any amount deposited on this count, along with applicable interest in accordance with law.
Case 3: Vikram Inderjit Kapur Director, M/s. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. Versus Rajesh Chandrakant Vishe The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur. - 2026 (10) TMI 1631 - GSTAT THANE in the matter of Lavino Kapur Cottons (P) Limited. The taxpayer is an exporter wherein the entire goods are fully exported. The taxpayer has chosen to export goods without payment of GST and seek refund of ITC. The proper officer partly allowed the refund and partly rejected the refund on account of GST Return differences. However, neither REF 08 was issued nor an opportunity of personal hearing was granted. Aggrieved by the above, the taxpayer preferred the first appeal. The first appellate authority has observed that there were procedural lapses on the part of the tax official but despite this lacuna, rejected the appeal. The taxpayer approached GSTAT as there were a punch of 39 identical cases varying over various periods. The GSTAT held that .1 For the facts, reasons, and legal provisions discussed hereinabove, the impugned Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Thane Rural Division, Bhayander, and the corresponding Orders-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur to the extent it reject the refund claims, in respect of all 39 appeals covered under this batch, are hereby set aside.
The matters are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority keeping all the issues open for fresh, de novo processing of the refund applications. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to strictly comply with the statutory mandate of Rule 92(3) of the CGST/MGST Rules, 2017.
Conclusion: It is observed that the taxpayers are getting substantial relief at GSTAT level which is the order of the day. Be that as it may, as we are almost at the end of October 2026, I appeal to all taxpayers to invariably prefer the first appeal in all cases where the taxpayer is aggrieved by the order in original. In all cases where OIA is dated on or after 01/08/2026, in all cases where desired relief was not granted there are good chances for filing the second appeal without any further loss of time as the law provides a time limit of three months from the OIA communication date. The GSTAT is expected to be magnanimous at least during 2026 on leniency in condonation of delay due to the fact that the taxpayers are getting confidence over GSTAT orders only during the past two months due to highly unbiased orders being passed by the GSTAT.