This week in GST case law: Tribunal orders of 27 October to 3 November 2026, and CBIC's rules of 1 November

Services supplied to a foreign parent on a principal-to-principal contract are exports, not intermediary services, so a refund of about ₹56 crore was allowed with interest (GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench, 30 October 2026). Other benches held that unaccounted stock found at a survey goes to section 73 or 74 and not section 130, and that a cancellation notice must state its specific grounds and cannot rest on an oral report. Check your own notice or refund file against them; the CGST Amendment Rules, 2026 apply from 1 November 2026.

A Tribunal order is final and binding on the parties to that appeal (section 113(6) CGST Act). All ten rulings below are Tribunal orders (which ruling binds me).

Can an export refund be refused by calling the service an intermediary service?

GSTAT Principal Bench: services to a foreign parent on a principal-to-principal contract are exports

GST Appellate Tribunal, Principal BenchExpedia Online Travel Services India Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Haryana, APL/15/PB/2026 and six connected appeals30 October 2026

Seven appeals covered refunds of unutilised input tax credit, ₹55,99,74,202 in all, on support and software services supplied to group companies abroad, services the officers called intermediary (paras 5, 8). The Bench kept the case because it involves the place of supply (proviso to section 109(5), para 19), found a contract with the foreign company alone and no agency, and directed refund with section 56 interest (paras 25 to 27, 31).

"there is no privity of contract between a third party and the Appellant. The contract is strictly between the Appellant and the foreign Company."

GSTAT Principal Bench, para 26

Why it matters: intermediary status turns on who contracts with whom, not on who the end customer is. Clause (b) of section 13(8) of the IGST Act was omitted by the Finance Act, 2026 from 30 March 2026, the Bench notes (para 16).

GSTAT Agra: interest on a refund of tax paid from the credit ledger

GST Appellate Tribunal, Agra BenchOm Textiles Mills v. Commissioner of State Tax, APL/177/AGR/202630 October 2026

A section 73 demand of ₹1,18,26,516 was paid from the credit ledger, set aside on first appeal and re-credited without interest (paras 2 to 4). The Bench held section 56 interest due because the office's own workload caused the delay (para 18), whatever the mode of payment (paras 22, 26).

"the statutory pre-deposit is not a ceiling on the amount that an appellant may deposit. It is the prescribed minimum payment required for invoking the appellate remedy and obtaining the statutory protection contemplated under Section 107(7)."

GSTAT Agra, para 34

Why it matters: paying the whole demand, or from the credit ledger, does not forfeit interest once the demand is set aside (paras 36, 38). On a refund that follows an appellate order that has attained finality, section 56 interest runs from the day after 60 days from the application, at up to 9 per cent as notified (proviso, quoted at para 17); the Bench left the calculation to the proper officer (para 39).

What must a notice or order contain before it can stand?

GSTAT Lucknow: a registration cannot be cancelled on an oral report with no supplier, GSTIN or period

GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow BenchBPJ Construction LLP v. Joint Commissioner (IT), State Tax, APL/328/LCK/20263 November 2026

A notice of 16 March 2026 said only that the firm was claiming credit in violation of section 16(2), relying on an intimation under section 74A and an oral report from a Deputy Commissioner (paras 5.2, 5.7), and named no supplier, GSTIN or period (para 5.3). The Bench set aside the cancellation of 1 April 2026 and the appeal order of 25 September 2026, restored the registration, left the section 74A proceedings alone, and held that a section first cited in the appeal order cannot cure the notice (para 5.8).

"A mere reference in the show cause notice to an oral intimation allegedly given by an officer regarding cancellation of registration cannot, by itself, constitute a valid and sufficient ground for cancellation of registration in the absence of specific allegations supported by the relevant statutory provisions."

GSTAT Lucknow, para 5.8

Why it matters: a cancellation notice needs its own particulars; a pending section 74A matter does not supply them. Credit taken in breach of section 16 drops out of rule 21 from 1 November 2026 (para 5.6).

GSTAT Cuttack: late returns filed with the tax paid are not suppression

GST Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack BenchAPL/5/CTT/2026, an appeal by the tax department, filed under section 112(3) on the direction of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Rourkela29 October 2026

A taxpayer filed six of seven overdue monthly returns on 20 April 2018, the day after an inspection (the seventh, for February 2018, on 6 June), with the return liability discharged (paras 4, 9). The first appellate authority held section 74 could not be invoked and moved the penalty to section 73. On the department's appeal the Bench agreed: suppression under Explanation 2 arises only from information not declared in a return, and the returns were accepted as correct (paras 9, 10.1, 10.4). It sent the penalty back for determination under section 73 "subject to the statutory limit" (para 10.5).

"mere failure to file seven monthly returns within the prescribed time without any evidence establishing the aforesaid statutory ingredients, cannot by itself sustain the invocation of section 74 of the Act."

GSTAT Cuttack, para 10.1

Why it matters: late filing with the tax paid does not by itself reach section 74, but a section 73 demand may still be determined within its limit.

GSTAT Bengaluru: a section 73 notice needs no earlier scrutiny or audit

GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru BenchRadikan Engineers & Consultants v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, APL/126/BUR/202627 October 2026

A taxpayer said a section 73 demand for 2019-20 was void because no scrutiny notice (FORM GST ASMT-10) or audit report (FORM GST ADT-02) came first. The Bench rejected the plea: neither scrutiny under section 61 nor audit under section 65 is a condition precedent, though if one is undertaken its procedure must be followed (paras 127, 186). It still allowed the appeal: one supply of ₹18,59,000 had been reported twice in GSTR-1 (outward supplies), as the deductors' GSTR-7 returns (tax deducted at source) showed.

"Section 73 does not draw its jurisdiction from section 61 or section 65. Section 65(7) is an enabling provision. It neither confers the power under section 73 nor confines it to cases arising from an audit."

GSTAT Bengaluru, para 127

Why it matters: on this view a missing ASMT-10 or ADT-02 is not by itself a jurisdiction defect.

When can goods be detained, penalised or seized?

GSTAT Ernakulam: section 129 needs the breach named, and job-work goods carry no tax to penalise

GST Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam BenchOxino PEB Private Limited v. Commissioner of SGST, Kerala, APL/50/ERN/202630 October 2026

A vehicle carrying 21,800 kg of steel was intercepted on 17 July 2020 while unloading at a job worker's premises; the e-way bill for the job-work movement came only after the interception, and an order of 18 August 2020 confirmed tax and penalty (paras 2.1, 2.2, 6.1). The Bench held the proceedings void because the notice named no section or rule contravened and the order relied on provisions the notice never cited (paras 5.1, 5.2), and added that no tax is payable on goods sent for job work, so no section 129(1) penalty arises (paras 7.3 to 7.5).

"No Penalty under section 129(1) of CGST Act can be proposed without specifying the provisions of the Act or Rules that have been contravened."

GSTAT Ernakulam, para 8(a)

Why it matters: the Raipur Bench in the issue of 3 November held that a section 129 penalty needs no proof of intent to evade tax; this Bench decided the case on the notice and the tax base.

GSTAT Agra: survey stock goes to section 73 or 74, not section 130

GST Appellate Tribunal, Agra BenchAPL/162/AGR/2026 and four connected appeals, appeals by the State tax department30 October 2026

In these Etawah matters a special team found tobacco stock missing from the books, and the officer levied penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation under section 130; the first appellate authority had set the orders aside (paras 1 to 10). The Bench followed three Allahabad High Court rulings it cites (Writ Tax 1082 of 2022, 1007 of 2022 and 957 of 2024), read sections 35(1) and 35(6) together, and dismissed the five appeals (paras 13 to 18).

"where at the time of survey of business premises excess or unaccounted goods are found the proper officer is only empowered to initiate proceedings u/s 73/74 of CGST/UPGST, Act, against business entity concerned, he is not authorised by law to initiate proceedings u/s 130 and levy the penalty in lieu of confiscation of goods."

GSTAT Agra, para 17

Why it matters: on this reading a survey finding starts a notice under section 73 or 74 (section 35(6)), not a section 130 action.

Can the pre-deposit for a first appeal come from the credit ledger?

GSTAT Mumbai: a credit-ledger deposit does not make an amnesty appeal time-barred

GST Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai BenchAPL/1/MMB/2026, Final Order No. 01/Court-1/MMB/20262 November 2026

A section 73 order of 30 August 2022 denied ₹6,36,082 of IGST credit on three bills of entry (paras 3, 6). The importer's first appeal of 30 January 2024 under Notification 53/2023-Central Tax carried the whole 12.5 per cent deposit from the credit ledger and nothing from the cash ledger (para 9). The Bench held it in time and no further cash payment due at this stage (paras 39, 45), and that credit on imports does not depend on a supplier's return and is not lost by reporting it under "all other ITC" (paras 48, 49).

"the deposit of 20% of 12.5% of the disputed tax from electronic credit ledger does not make the appeal time barred."

GSTAT Mumbai, para 39

Why it matters: two benches differ on the cash part. Agra in the issue of 3 November gave an appellant 30 days to pay it; Mumbai held no further cash payment was due at this stage, noting that the department had received cash under section 112(8) on the second appeal (paras 44, 45).

What else did the Tribunal decide on section 74 and transitional credit?

Both allowed the taxpayer's appeal; paragraph numbers are the orders' own.

What did CBIC notify between 23 October and 4 November 2026?

As issued on the dates shown. Circulars 257 to 266/2026-GST and Instruction 02/2026-GST (26 to 30 October) are in the issue of 3 November.