This week in GST case law: rulings of 13 October to 2 November 2026, and CBIC's October circulars

Rulings decided between 13 October and 2 November 2026 by the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) and the Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts say that a section 74 notice must state its facts, an order cannot rest on a ground the notice never raised, and a hearing comes before the decision. CBIC also issued Circulars 257 to 266/2026-GST and Instruction 02/2026-GST.

These are recent decisions; any appeal or stay shows on each card in Nira as it is recorded. A High Court ruling binds officers in its own State; a Tribunal bench's order persuades.

What must a show cause notice contain?

Madhya Pradesh High Court: section 74 cannot be used only to reach five years

High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Division BenchG.R. Infra Projects Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP 40186/202614 October 2026

A section 74 notice (25 August 2026) alleged fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression with no facts. The Court found it identical to the notice the Supreme Court had quashed (para 11) and quashed it, leaving the department free to issue a fresh one (para 12).

"only for the purpose of bringing the case within limitation the show-cause notice DRC-01 cannot be issued under Section 74 of the Act, if no grounds are disclosed in the show-cause notice."

Madhya Pradesh High Court, para 10

Why it matters: a five-year notice must give its reasons; Circular 258 (below) says the same. It binds Madhya Pradesh.

GSTAT Ernakulam: reciting all of section 16 does not charge a breach of section 16(2)(c)

GST Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam BenchShri Traders, Palakkad v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Kochi, APL/19/ERN/202616 October 2026

The notice reproduced all of section 16 but alleged only a breach of section 16(2)(aa); the order found one of section 16(2)(c). Relying on the Supreme Court's Armour Security (India) Ltd (2025) and section 75(7), the Tribunal held that section 160(1) does not save such a notice, and allowed the appeal (paras 9.1, 10.4, 10.5).

"the mere recital of a legal provision as part of the show cause notice, without mentioning whether and how it has been contravened by the tax payer would not amount to a charge made out against the tax payer, on which he can be said to have been put on notice."

GSTAT Ernakulam, para 11

Why it matters: compare the ground in your order with your notice.

GSTAT Chandigarh: one notice for several years is allowed, but section 74 needs a fraud allegation

GST Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh BenchR L C R 7 Super Market v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, APL/13/CHD/202616 October 2026

The Tribunal rejected the objection to one notice and order covering several years (para 17), noting the Delhi High Court's Mathur Polymers (special leave petition dismissed), Bombay's Rollmet LLP (question referred to a larger bench) and two other Tribunal benches (paras 12 to 16). It still set aside the section 74 demand and penalty, to be redetermined under section 75(2) as if the notice were under section 73 (paras 32, 34).

"the show cause notice does not mention any allegation as to how the Appellant had committed fraud or made wilful misstatement or suppressed facts to evade tax by availing inadmissible ITC."

GSTAT Chandigarh, para 31

Why it matters: two live questions: multi-year notices, and fraud pleaded without facts.

GSTAT Lucknow: a supplier later found non-existent does not make the buyer a fraudster

GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow BenchM.K. Enterprises v. Commissioner of State GST, APL/25/LCK/202615 October 2026

A section 74 order of 30 June 2023 denied a buyer's credit because its supplier was later reported non-existent. Noting the invoices, e-way bills and bank payments and no evidence of collusion, the Tribunal followed three Allahabad High Court rulings (Khurja Scrap Trading, Singhal Iron Traders, Safecon Lifesciences) and allowed the appeal. Late payment beyond 180 days falls under the second proviso to section 16(2) and rule 37, and the buyer had reversed that credit (paras 4.25 to 4.33).

"The mere fact that the supplier was subsequently reported to be non-existent/bogus cannot, in the facts of the present case, be elevated into proof that the Appellant's purchases were fictitious or that the Appellant committed fraud."

GSTAT Lucknow, para 4.26

Why it matters: to use section 74 against a buyer because its supplier proved non-existent, the department must show the buyer's own part, on the facts of the case. The order is under the UP GST Act.

Must a hearing and reasons come first?

Gujarat High Court: cancellation from 2018 by a one-line order is quashed

High Court of Gujarat, Division BenchAnkit Vinodkumar Garg v. Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, SCA 6229/202615 October 2026

A REG-17 notice of 19 December 2022 alleged registration obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, and the petitioner replied. A one-line order of 23 April 2024 cancelled the registration from 10 April 2018. The Court quashed it as non-speaking, since it ignored the reply, leaving the department free to pass a reasoned order after a hearing (paras 4, 5).

"The impugned order is bereft of any observations establishing that the petitioner has, in fact, obtained its registration, by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts."

Gujarat High Court, para 5

Why it matters: retrospective cancellation needs findings. It binds Gujarat.

GSTAT Thane: no refund rejection without FORM GST RFD-08, and an appeal hearing does not cure it

GST Appellate Tribunal, Thane BenchVikram Inderjit Kapur v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, APL/12/THN/202622 October 2026

Refund claims were partly rejected in FORM GST RFD-06 for a "mismatch of ITC", with no RFD-08 notice and no hearing. The Tribunal held rule 92(3) mandatory, said the appellate authority's hearing could not cure the defect, and remanded all 39 appeals (paras 6.3 to 6.7).

"A post-decisional hearing at the appellate stage cannot serve as a substitute for a pre-decisional statutory notice."

GSTAT Thane, para 6.5

Why it matters: a refund applicant is owed notice and a reply first.

What did the Tribunal say on pre-deposit and section 129?

GSTAT Agra: pre-deposit paid from the credit ledger does not defeat an amnesty appeal, if the cash part follows within 30 days

GST Appellate Tribunal, Agra BenchTrishul Asphalt Products v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeals), Mathura, APL/98/AGR/202616 October 2026

A time-barred first appeal under the amnesty scheme (Notification 53/2023) carried the whole 12.5 per cent pre-deposit paid from the credit ledger; the appellant said the portal would not take the cash part. The Tribunal held rejection on that ground alone unsustainable, gave 30 days to pay the cash shortfall and directed a hearing on merits (paras 14, 15). It notes that the Supreme Court has stayed a contrary Patna High Court ruling (para 12).

"It is a well settled principle of law that a taxpayer cannot be made to suffer due to technical glitches or system error on the official portal."

GSTAT Agra, para 9

Why it matters: a cash-component shortfall is curable, not fatal.

GSTAT Raipur: a section 129 penalty needs no proof of intent to evade tax

GST Appellate Tribunal, Raipur BenchAsat Logistics Private Limited v. Commissioner of State Tax, APL/117/RPR/202613 October 2026

Vehicles were intercepted six days after their e-way bills expired. The Tribunal followed the Calcutta High Court's Asian Switchgear and, as the Chhattisgarh High Court did in Shree Radhemani Multitrade, distinguished next-day interception cases and dismissed the appeal (paras 15 to 20).

"the proof or facts, circumstances or material on record which shows intent to evade tax are not required"

GSTAT Raipur, para 20

Why it matters: on this view the penalty is a civil liability regardless of intent (para 16); see Instruction 02/2026-GST below.

What did CBIC issue in October 2026?

As held on 3 November 2026. Instruction 02/2026 binds CBIC officers only, until the Act is amended.