Insights & Analysis
Considered commentary on the questions our clients actually face — drawn from the firm's courtroom practice across commercial, civil and property disputes.
When Is a Building a “Plant”? The Supreme Court in Safari Retreats on Section 17(5)(d), Blocked Credit and the Functionality Test
A mall developer with more than Rs. 34 crores of input tax credit was told that Section 17(5)(d) blocked it. The Supreme Court upheld the blocked-credit clauses, refused to read “plant or machinery” as “plant and machinery”, and held that whether a building is a “plant” turns on a fact-specific functionality test — with hotels and cinema theatres excluded.
Read the analysisMissing Battery, Complete Vehicle: CESTAT Principal Bench Classifies a CKD Electric Motorcycle Kit as a Whole Vehicle but Denies the Concessional Kit Exemption
An importer of electric two-wheeler kits argued that a notice issued by an Assistant Commissioner was void, that self-assessed Bills of Entry were final, and that kits missing batteries and chargers still earned the concessional rate. The Tribunal rejected each point: classification follows essential character, but the exemption demands every necessary component.
14 min readA Letter of Acceptance Does Not Waive the Right to Challenge Enhanced Customs Value: CESTAT Allahabad in Siddhi Vinayak Importers
Importers pressed to sign letters accepting a higher assessable value are often told they have given up the right to complain. A CESTAT Allahabad final order, following the Delhi High Court's Niraj Silk Mills decision and the Supreme Court's Century Metal Recycling, says otherwise: consent narrows only the speaking order, and a valuation enhancement must still rest on disclosed, comparable evidence.
13 min readNo Rent Agreement for the Additional Place, No Ground for Cancellation: Gauhati High Court Restores a GST Registration Cancelled Under Section 29(2)
A Guwahati trader lost his GST registration because he could not produce a rent agreement for an additional place of business that was the subject of a landlord dispute. The Gauhati High Court held that neither Section 29(2), Rule 21 nor Form REG-01 supports cancellation on that ground.
13 min readAn Order Filed in the Wrong Portal Tab Is Not Communicated: Bombay High Court Revives a Time-Barred GST Appeal in Elster Metering
A Section 73 adjudication order was uploaded in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal and the appeal against it was rejected as late. The Bombay High Court held that filing returns on the portal does not show knowledge of an order placed in the wrong tab, and revived the appeal.
13 min readSeven Days Means Seven Days: Calcutta High Court Quashes Section 129 Penalty Orders Passed 175 Days Late on Two Detained Lorries
Two lorries hired out to a transporter were detained in July 2025 and the penalty orders came in January 2026. The Calcutta High Court held that the seven-day period for the order in Section 129(3) had run out on 24 July 2025, that nothing paused it, and that the orders were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.
14 min readWho Is the Proper Officer for a Section 122 Penalty? Telangana High Court on Jurisdiction, Section 160 and the Appeal Route in a Rs. 17.27 Crore Fake-Invoice Case
A trader challenged a Section 122 show cause notice and a penalty order on the ground that no proper officer had been assigned that function before CBIC Circular 254/11/2025-GST. The Telangana High Court rejected the jurisdiction plea and sent every other ground to the appellate authority.
15 min readNo Invoice, No Value: Gujarat High Court Quashes a Rs.43.43 Crore GST Demand on Head Office Expenses Not Cross-Charged to Branches
In Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v. Union of India, a Division Bench holds that where no invoice is issued by the head office, the value of services to branches is Nil, and that failure to cross-charge is not suppression under Section 74.
14 min readAudit Findings and Section 74: Patna High Court Declines to Quash a Fraud-Based GST Notice and Sends the Assessee to Appeal
In Amit Agency v. Commissioner, CGST and CX, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court distinguishes G.R. Infra Projects and Tata Steel, refuses to test the sufficiency of the officer's satisfaction under Section 74(1), and directs the assessee to the appellate authority.
13 min read