Judicial decisions / Statutory interpretation / Legal analysis

Questions of law. Decisions that matter.

A considered collection of judgments and legal analysis on GST, taxation, statutory powers and procedural safeguards — examining what the courts decided, the reasons underlying those decisions and their practical implications.

Practical questions

Key Legal Issues & Developments

Start with a practical legal issue, then examine the judgment and the reasoning behind it.

Tax demands · Statutory protection

What happens when tax was paid before a notice?

Read the court's treatment of pre-notice payment, retrospective ITC provisions and consequential recovery.

Read the Hanumanthappa note ↗ Input tax credit · Rule 86A

When can an electronic credit ledger be restricted?

Examine the precise scope of Rule 86A and why the identity of the credit-holder matters.

Read the Sri Padmavathi note ↗ Adjudication · Tax replies

What if the order does not address the reply?

Understand the court's approach when a taxpayer's written response was not properly considered.

Read the RKS Agrotech note ↗

These notes examine what the judgments decided; they do not replace reading the orders or evaluating the facts of a particular matter.

From the record

Significant legal questions

Judicial decisions arranged around the questions they examine — not a catalogue of outcomes.

Rule 86A · ITC blocking · Statutory scope 01

Rule 86A cannot be used against a supplier for credit allegedly availed by its customer

The High Court distinguished allegedly wrongful ITC availed by a recipient from the supplier’s own electronic credit ledger. It found the Rule 86A action against the supplier outside the provision’s jurisdictional scope.

Sri Padmavathi Marketing v. Assistant Commissioner Read judgment note ↗Sec. 16(5) · Pre-SCN payment · Recovery 02

Sec. 16(5), tax already paid and the limits of an ex parte GST demand

A demand pursued after payment under DRC-01A was challenged alongside the retrospective protection of Sec. 16(5). The High Court set aside both the ex parte adjudication order and consequential bank-recovery notice, directing the authority to examine the earlier payment and the statutory amendment on fresh consideration.

Hanumanthappa v. Assistant Commissioner Read judgment note ↗Audit · Adjudicator jurisdiction · Proper officer 03

Can the officer who conducted the audit also adjudicate the resulting demand?

A challenge to the same officer acting at the audit and adjudication stages prompted the High Court to set aside the order-in-original and require the jurisdiction objection to be determined first.

Sumukha Ventures v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Read judgment note ↗

Find an area of law

Explore by subject

Start with the issue you are dealing with, then read the relevant judgments and analysis.

GST & Indirect TaxDemand, credit, refunds, adjudication Input Tax CreditRule 86A, Sec. 16 and eligibility JurisdictionStatutory powers and proper officer Procedure & FairnessHearing, notice and reasoned orders

Searchable judgments

Research Library

Private editorial draft

Search the judgments by provision, legal issue, case name or procedure. Each note identifies the question, reasoning and source order.

GST2026-03-04WP 373/2026NC: 2026:KHC:13184

Rule 86A · ITC blocking · Statutory scope

Rule 86A cannot be used against a supplier for credit allegedly availed by its customer

Sri Padmavathi Marketing v. Assistant Commissioner

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

Can the supplier’s electronic credit ledger be blocked under Rule 86A because its customer is alleged to have availed fraudulent credit?

Read the analysis

Context and reasoning

The department relied on allegations of invoices without underlying supply involving a customer. The petitioner argued that Rule 86A addresses circumstances where the credit in the taxpayer’s own electronic credit ledger is allegedly fraudulent or ineligible. The Court examined the text of the rule and held that the customer-side allegation did not empower the department to restrict the supplier’s credit in this manner.

Decision and directions

The impugned notice was set aside and unblocking of the credit ledger was directed, without foreclosing other proceedings permissible under law.

Why the decision matters

The decision draws an important boundary around the extraordinary power to restrict electronic credit: the statutory preconditions must relate to the credit proposed to be blocked.

Judgment referencesParas 3–7 (statutory distinction), 8–11 (disposition)

Recorded appearanceLochana S. Babu — listed as counsel for petitioner

Read original judgment ↗

GST2025-11-07WP 17779/2025

Refund · Search · DRC-03

Amounts taken during investigation: when is a DRC-03 payment truly voluntary?

Gunnam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

The Court examined payments made amid GST search proceedings and the limits of treating such payments as voluntary under Sec. 74(5), in the context of rejection of the taxpayer’s refund applications.

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

Can money deposited during investigative action be treated as a voluntary tax payment without examining the circumstances of collection and adjudication?

Read the analysis

Context and reasoning

The taxpayer sought refund of amounts paid through DRC-03 during an investigation. The Court considered the statutory distinction between voluntary payment and recovery through lawful adjudication and examined the deficiency memos issued against the refund applications.

Decision and directions

The deficiency memos were quashed and relief was granted regarding entitlement to refund, with the applications requiring processing in accordance with law.

Why the decision matters

The judgment is particularly relevant to the legal character of payments secured during investigations and the procedural route for recovering or refunding those amounts.

Judgment referencesReasoning and operative directions in the published judgment

Recorded appearanceLochana S. Babu — listed as counsel and recorded making submissions

Read original judgment ↗

GST2026-04-24WP 7772/2026NC: 2026:KHC:22516

Audit · Adjudicator jurisdiction · Proper officer

Can the officer who conducted the audit also adjudicate the resulting demand?

Sumukha Ventures v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

A challenge to the same officer acting at the audit and adjudication stages prompted the High Court to set aside the order-in-original and require the jurisdiction objection to be determined first.

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

How must a jurisdictional objection be dealt with when the officer who conducted the audit also passes the adjudication order?

Read the analysis

Context and reasoning

The petitioner contended that the same authority had already expressed findings during audit and could not subsequently act as an independent adjudicator, drawing on CBIC Circular Nos. 31/05/2018-GST and 169/01/2022-GST. The respondents disputed the applicability of those circulars to State authorities. Rather than treating jurisdiction as merely incidental to merits, the Court directed consideration of that threshold objection.

Decision and directions

The matter was remitted to the concerned authority with directions to take up the jurisdiction issue first. The authority was permitted to obtain administrative orders concerning assignment, and further examination of merits would follow the jurisdictional determination.

Why the decision matters

A significant procedural order for challenges involving overlapping investigative and adjudicatory functions: the authority must address the competence objection before turning to the substantive assessment.

Judgment referencesParas 2–3 (objection), 6–10 (directions)

Recorded appearanceLochana S. Babu — listed as counsel for petitioner

Read original judgment ↗

GST2026-09-15WP 28678/2026NC: 2026:KHC:49967

Rule 86A · Natural justice

Pre-decisional hearing before blocking input tax credit

Lazard Infrastructure LLP v. Assistant Commissioner

The High Court directed unblocking of credit after noting that the restriction had been imposed without prior intimation and hearing; any fresh restriction had to follow proper procedure.

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

What procedural opportunity must precede a decision restricting use of an electronic credit ledger?

Read the analysis

Context and reasoning

The proceedings concerned restriction of ITC without prior notice or a pre-decisional hearing. The Court treated procedural opportunity as a necessary safeguard while leaving open lawful fresh action after compliance.

Decision and directions

The restriction was lifted, without prejudice to fresh action taken after intimation and a pre-decisional hearing.

Why the decision matters

The decision shows that urgent statutory powers remain subject to the procedural safeguards applicable to their exercise.

Judgment referencesOrder, pp. 3–5

Recorded appearanceLochana S. Babu — counsel on record; Hemant Venkatray Pai argued

Read original judgment ↗

GST2026-07-29WP 23072/2026NC: 2026:KHC:39489

Adjudication · Reply · Natural justice

An adjudication order must engage with the taxpayer’s reply

RKS Agrotech Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

The High Court intervened where the taxpayer had uploaded a response to the show cause notice but the adjudication proceeded without proper consideration of it.

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

What follows when the adjudicating authority fails to consider a response already on record?

Read the analysis

Context and reasoning

The petitioner had uploaded a reply to the SCN. The impugned adjudication did not meaningfully address that material, raising a procedural fairness issue in the adjudicatory decision-making process.

Decision and directions

The adjudication order and consequential recovery notice were set aside and the matter restored for a fresh examination of the reply and documents.

Why the decision matters

Written objections are not a formality; they must be considered in substance before a reasoned tax determination is made.

Judgment referencesParas 2–4 and operative directions

Recorded appearanceLochana S. Babu — listed as counsel; Saptarshi Mukhopadhyay argued

Read original judgment ↗

GST2026-09-28WP 203905/2026NC: 2026:KHC-K:10359

Sec. 16(5) · Pre-SCN payment · Recovery

Sec. 16(5), tax already paid and the limits of an ex parte GST demand

Hanumanthappa v. Assistant Commissioner

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

Can an adjudication and consequential recovery stand without examining tax paid before the SCN and the retrospective application of Sec. 16(5)?

Read the analysis

Context and reasoning

The dispute arose from FY 2018–19 scrutiny followed by DRC-01A. The petitioner paid ₹6,98,584 in Form DRC-03 before the SCN, but the department subsequently proceeded under Sec. 73 and raised a demand including interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that a fresh demand over the already-paid amount was untenable and relied on the later introduction of Sec. 16(5) as a ground affecting the tax demand itself. The Court recognised that the adjudication had proceeded ex parte and that those matters required a proper determination on the taxpayer’s objections.

Decision and directions

The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 18 April 2024 and consequent DRC-13 recovery notice dated 13 July 2026 were set aside. The taxpayer was permitted to respond to the SCN; the authority must decide the matter afresh, including the application and effect of Sec. 16(5).

Why the decision matters

The order illustrates why an adjudication cannot be assessed independently of payments already on record and a subsequent retrospective legislative change. It expressly requires a fresh decision on both issues; it does not itself adjudge the refund claim.

Judgment referencesParas 2–3 (submissions), 6–7 (payment and recovery), 8–10 (reasoning and relief)

Recorded appearanceLochana S. Babu — listed as counsel and recorded making submissions

Read original judgment ↗

GST2026-07-08WP 19622/2026NC: 2026:KHC:34234

Appeal · Pre-deposit · Jurisdiction

Jurisdictional objections and the GST appellate remedy

Lazard Infrastructure LLP v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

The Court addressed the proper forum for examining jurisdictional objections following rejection of an appeal for non-compliance with statutory pre-deposit requirements.

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

Can questions of jurisdiction be examined by the statutory appellate authority once an appeal is restored?

Read the analysis

Context and reasoning

The dispute concerned an appeal rejected for want of the requisite pre-deposit, alongside the taxpayer’s jurisdictional objections. The Court considered the appellate mechanism as the appropriate forum for those questions at that stage.

Decision and directions

The taxpayer was given an opportunity to comply with the pre-deposit condition and seek restoration of the appeal, with questions of jurisdiction and merits remaining open.

Why the decision matters

The order illustrates the interaction between writ jurisdiction and statutory appellate remedies where the taxpayer’s objection goes to the authority of the original proceedings.

Judgment referencesParas 1–5 and operative directions

Recorded appearanceLochana S. Babu — appeared with Saptarshi Mukhopadhyay; her submissions recorded

Read original judgment ↗

Original writing

Essays & Commentary

Planned long-form analysis built around statute, authority, arguments and judicial interpretation.

In development / Jurisdiction

When jurisdiction is more than a procedural objection

Statutory competence, assignment of functions and the threshold question of authority.

In development / GST

The architecture of Sec. 74

Understanding the statutory distinction between a disputed tax position and allegations requiring intent.

In development / Judicial process

The obligation to consider a reply

Why a hearing is not complete merely because a response has been received.

The author

Lochana S. Babu

Advocate · Bengaluru

Lochana S. Babu is a practising advocate based in Bengaluru. Her work principally concerns taxation litigation and questions of statutory authority, adjudication, appellate remedies and judicial review.

The Reasoned View brings together her examination of judgments and legal issues, with an emphasis on the precise question before the court, its reasoning and the consequences of its decision.

Partner, Fiscal Law Partners.