Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds 200% VAT Penalty On Trader For Bogus Bill Trading

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld a penalty equal to 200% of the tax imposed on an iron and steel trader for issuing false tax invoices without actual movement of goods to facilitate wrongful availment of input tax credit. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty of Rs 50.52 lakh levied under Section 55(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, for the period from June 2014 to June 2016. The...

Differential GST On Pre-GST Works Contracts To Be Reimbursed By State Agencies: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court ruled that the additional GST liability arising out of the shift from the pre-GST VAT (Value Added Tax) regime to the GST regime in ongoing works contracts cannot be imposed on contractors.The bench consists of Justice M Nagaprasanna, who directed the State Departments and government agencies to reimburse the differential GST to contractors.All the contracts were awarded prior to July 2017 under the KVAT regime, where the contract rates factored in VAT and...

AP VAT Act | Tax Dept Must Specify Negligence Before Recovering Company Dues From Directors: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati has held that tax authorities cannot recover unpaid taxes under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, from directors of the company unless they first clearly spell out the negligence or breach of duty alleged against them. A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T. C. D. Sekhar clarified the scope of Section 24(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The court said that while the provision does allow directors of...

APVAT | Value Added Tax Not Leviable On Offshore Sales Beyond Territorial Waters: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Value Added Tax (VAT) under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (AP VAT) cannot be levied on sales beyond 12 nautical miles, as such transactions fall outside the State's territorial jurisdiction. Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar stated that neither the State Legislature nor the Central Legislature would have the power to levy tax on the sale of goods made beyond the territorial waters of India. In the case at hand, the...

SIM Cards, Recharge Coupons & Value-Added Services Not 'Goods' Under KVAT Act; Kerala High Court Quashes Tax Demand Against Airtel

The Kerala High Court granted relief to Bharti Airtel by holding that SIM cards, recharge coupons, fixed monthly charges and telecom value-added services cannot be treated as 'goods' under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), on which any tax can be levied. Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian addressed a case filed by Bharti Airtel, the assessee, challenging the assessing order both on grounds of limitation and on merits, seeking to clarify that SIM...

Gujarat High Court Allows Pfizer's Additional Claims Worth ₹15 Crore Under Central Sales Tax Act, Sets Aside VAT Tribunal Order

The Gujarat High Court has allowed writ petition by Pfizer, a pharmaceutical major against the Value Added Tax (VAT) Tribunal order that expressly barred the consideration of any additional Form-F. In a judgment dated November 20, 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justice Pranav Trivedi and Justice A.S. Supehia noted the 11-year pendency in litigation in relation to production of Form-F under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In this vein, the High Court deliberated on piecemeal...

Delhi High Court Quashes VAT Assessment Orders Passed By Audit Officer Citing Lack Of Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court has quashed a batch of VAT assessment orders issued by VAT Audit Officer, stating that the authority did not have necessary delegation to carry out assessments.Form DVAT-50 enables the VAT Commissioner to authorize officials for carrying out audit, investigation and enforcement functions under Delhi Value Added Tax Act and Rules.However, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that no such authorization was made in favour of VATO (Audit) before...

KVAT Act | Permission For Compounding Tax Cannot Be Cancelled For Suppression; Only Suppressed Turnover Can Be Taxed: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that under the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003), the assessing authority cannot cancel permission to pay tax at compounding rates for suppression in the same year it was opted, and only the suppressed turnover can be taxed at normal rates. Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim opined that cancellation proceedings are still pending, and the cancellation is not carried out, and the assessment is not concluded on a best judgment assessment basis. In such a...

Two Days Delay In Paying Last Instalment Under VAT Amnesty Scheme Owing To Technical Glitch Is Condonable: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has extended benefit of Amnesty Scheme under the Gujarat Value Added Tax (GVAT) Act, 2003 to dealer who was precluded from making full payment under the Scheme on account of 'automatic' re-adjustment of instalment amount. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi set aside rejection of application under the Scheme noting that non-payment of differential amount was only due to technical glitches of the online portal. The...

Audit Assessment Under Orissa VAT Act Is Invalid If Audit Visit Report Is Time-Barred: High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that an audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act (Odisha Value Added Tax Rules, 2005) cannot be initiated when the AVR (Audit Visit Report) is beyond the limitation period. Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Murahari Sri Raman were examining whether the Assessing Authority has jurisdiction to proceed with Audit Assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act by issuing of statutory notice in Form VAT-306 on the basis of the AVR submitted under Section...

ITC Cannot Be Denied To Bona Fide Purchasers If Seller Defaults On Tax Payment : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods purchased from registered dealers cannot be denied to bona fide purchasers merely because the seller failed to deposit the Value Added Tax (VAT) with the government.A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that there was no infirmity in the order of Delhi High Court granting credit to the respondent, a bonafide purchaser. “We do not find a good reason to interfere with the order...

Revisional Powers U/S 56 KVAT Act Are Limited, Clarificatory Orders Have Only Prospective Effect: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that revisional powers under Section 56 of the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003) are limited, and clarificatory orders only have a prospective effect. Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that with reference to the power to issue clarification under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner has been empowered to hold that clarificatory orders would only have prospective operation. In other words, the exercise of the power by...