GST OFFICERS ON A PENALTY HUNT: HOW SMALL TAXPAYERS ARE BEING CRUSHED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF DISPROPORTIONATE PENALTIES – Section 126 of the CGST Act — The Forgotten Safeguard That Officers Refuse to Apply
THE GROUND REALITY — WHAT IS HAPPENING TO SMALL TAXPAYERS
In my 40+ years of practice in indirect taxes — from Sales Tax to VAT to GST — I have never seen such a disturbing trend as what is happening today across GST field formations. The GST officers, driven by what appears to be nothing more than target–based revenue collection, are imposing disproportionate penalties on small and bonafide taxpayers, completely ignoring the statutory safeguards that Parliament has specifically built into the law to protect them.
Let me state the problem plainly:
A small businessman — say a petty shop keeper, a small trader, a freelancer — makes a minor error in his GST return. The tax involved is Rs. 2,000 or Rs. 3,000 or even less than Rs. 5,000. He has no fraudulent intent. There is no evasion. The mistake is a genuine oversight — an error apparent on the face of the record, easily rectifiable.
What does the GST officer do?
Instead of applying Section 126 of the CGST Act, which expressly prohibits the imposition of penalty for such minor breaches, the officer slaps a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under CGST and Rs. 10,000 under SGST — totalling Rs. 20,000 — on a taxpayer whose entire tax liability may be less than Rs. 5,000.
This is not administration. This is penalty terrorism. And it is happening on a mass scale.
THE LAW IS CRYSTAL CLEAR — SECTION 126 OF THE CGST ACT, 2017
Let me reproduce the exact text of Section 126 so that every taxpayer, every practitioner, and indeed every GST officer may read it carefully:
Section 126. General disciplines related to penalty.—
(1) No officer under this Act shall impose any penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements and in particular, any omission or mistake in documentation which is easily rectifiable and made without fraudulent intent or gross negligence.
Explanation. — For the purpose of this sub-section, —
(a) a breach shall be considered a ” minor breach” if the amount of tax involved is less than five thousand rupees;
(b) an omission or mistake in documentation shall be considered to be easily rectifiable if the same is an error apparent on the face of record.
(2) The penalty imposed under this Act shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and shall be commensurate with the degree and severity of the breach.
(3) No penalty shall be imposed on any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
(4) The officer under this Act shall while imposing penalty in an order for a breach of any law, regulation or procedural requirement, specify the nature of the breach and the applicable law, regulation or procedure under which the amount of penalty for the breach has been specified.
(5) When a person voluntarily discloses to an officer under this Act the circumstances of a breach of the tax law, regulation or procedural requirement prior to the discovery of the breach by the officer under this Act, the proper officer may consider this fact as a mitigating factor when quantifying a penalty for that person.
(6) The provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases where the penalty specified under this Act is either a fixed sum or expressed as a fixed percentage.
ANALYSIS — WHAT SECTION 126 ACTUALLY MANDATES
The Mandatory “Shall Not” — Sub-Section (1)
The language of Section 126(1) is not permissive. It does not say “may consider” or “should try.” It uses the words ” No officer under this Act SHALL impose any penalty“ for minor breaches. This is a mandatory prohibition. It is a legislative command to every GST officer in the country.
And the Explanation makes it mathematically clear — if the tax involved is less than Rs. 5,000, it is a minor breach. Period. No discretion. No debate.
The Proportionality Mandate — Sub-Section (2)
Even where a penalty is imposable, Section 126(2) mandates that it shall be “commensurate with the degree and severity of the breach” . This is the statutory embodiment of the Doctrine of Proportionality — a constitutional principle that the Supreme Court has upheld time and again.
A tax shortfall of Rs. 2,000 cannot attract a penalty of Rs. 20,000 (Rs. 10,000 CGST + Rs. 10,000 SGST). The penalty exceeds the breach by 10 times. This is not proportionality. This is punishment for the sake of punishment.
The Natural Justice Requirement — Sub-Section (3)
No penalty can be imposed without giving the taxpayer an opportunity of being heard. In practice, I have seen countless cases where Show Cause Notices are issued and orders are passed on the same day — or within hours. The taxpayer never gets a genuine opportunity to respond.
The Specification Requirement — Sub-Section (4)
The officer must specify the nature of the breach and the law under which penalty is being imposed. Vague, template-based penalty orders that do not address the specific circumstances of the case are legally unsustainable.
The Voluntary Disclosure Protection — Sub-Section (5)
If a taxpayer voluntarily discloses a breach before it is discovered by the officer, this must be treated as a mitigating factor. In practice, bonafide taxpayers who self-correct their returns are still being penalised as if they were fraudsters.
THE SECTION 126(6) MISUNDERSTANDING — THE EXCUSE OFFICERS USE
Many GST officers take shelter under Section 126(6), which states that the provisions of this section “shall not apply in such cases where the penalty specified under this Act is either a fixed sum or expressed as a fixed percentage.”
Officers argue: “Section 122 prescribes a minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000. This is a ‘fixed sum.’ Therefore Section 126 does not apply.”
This interpretation is wrong, and the Courts have repeatedly said so.
The Allahabad High Court in Clear Secured Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax GST UP [Writ Tax No. 5 of 2023, dated 23.11.2023] — where a penalty of Rs. 56,00,952 was reduced to Rs. 10,000 — specifically held that the mandate of Section 126(2) along with applicable notifications must be taken into consideration while imposing penalties. The Court criticised the failure to consider the guidelines under Sections 126(2) and 128 of the Act.
Furthermore, the Allahabad High Court in BVM Trans Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [2025] conducted a detailed analysis of Section 126(6) and held:
“The mandatory command of the Legislature is manifest from Section 126(1) ordaining ‘no officer under this Act shall impose any penalty from minor breaches .‘. The moderation which the statute contemplates is further underlined by Section 126(2) which bids officers administering the Act to bear in mind that penalty should be imposed dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case and be commensurate with the degree and severity of the breach.”
The Court further observed that Section 126(6) cannot be read as ” whittling down” the application of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 126. The distinction between discretionary penalties and predetermined penalties does not give officers a blank cheque to impose disproportionate penalties.
PRACTICAL EXAMPLES — HOW SMALL TAXPAYERS ARE BEING HARASSED
Example 1: The Petty Shop Keeper
Mr. Ramesh runs a small grocery shop in Mysore. His monthly turnover is Rs. 3 lakh. He files his GSTR-3B regularly. In one quarter, due to an error in his accounting software, his output tax was short by Rs. 2,500. He discovered the error himself and paid the differential tax with interest in the next month’s return.
What the officer did: Issued SCN under Section 73 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 CGST + Rs. 10,000 SGST = Rs. 20,000.
What the law says: Under Section 126(1), this is a “minor breach” (tax involved is less than Rs. 5,000). The error was easily rectifiable and was in fact rectified voluntarily. Under Section 126(5), the voluntary disclosure should have been treated as a mitigating factor. No penalty should have been imposed at all.
Example 2: The Small Trader with a Documentation Error
Mrs. Lakshmi, a textile trader, mentioned the wrong HSN code in two invoices. The correct HSN and the wrong HSN attract the same tax rate. There is zero revenue loss. The error was apparent on the face of the record.
What the officer did: Imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 CGST + Rs. 10,000 SGST under Section 125.
What the law says: This is exactly the type of “omission or mistake in documentation which is easily rectifiable and made without fraudulent intent or gross negligence” that Section 126(1) was designed to protect. The CBIC’s own Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST recognises that minor errors in HSN codes (where the first 2 digits are correct and the tax rate is accurate) should attract only a nominal penalty of Rs. 500 each under CGST and SGST — not Rs. 10,000 each.
Example 3: The E-Way Bill Expiry Case
Mr. Suresh, a small manufacturer, dispatched goods with a valid e-way bill. Due to vehicle breakdown, the goods could not reach the destination before the e-way bill expired. The tax was fully paid. All invoices were in order. There was no intent to evade tax.
What the officer did: Detained the vehicle and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 129.
What the Courts have said: In Daya Shanker Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [W.P. No. 12324/2022], the MP High Court set aside such a penalty, holding that the department failed to establish any element of tax evasion, fraudulent intent, or negligence. The Court observed: “The punishment should be commensurate to the breach is the legislative mandate as per sub– section (1) of Section 126.”
Example 4: The Delayed Payment During Covid
A small services company delayed payment of GST by 45 days during the Covid-19 pandemic. The tax was ultimately paid in full with interest. No tax was evaded.
What the officer did: Imposed penalty of Rs. 56,00,952.
What the Court did: The Allahabad High Court in Clear Secured Services Pvt. Ltd. [Writ Tax No. 5/2023] reduced the penalty from Rs. 56,00,952 to Rs. 10,000, observing that “there is no material on record or even an allegation that the amount has been collected but not paid or evaded.”
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS AND CASE LAWS
1. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC) — AIR 1970 SC 253
This is the mother of all penalty jurisprudence in India. The Supreme Court laid down principles that remain the bedrock of penalty law across all statutes:
“An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi–criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation.”
“Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances.”
“Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.”
My Note: This judgment is 55 years old, yet GST officers in 2026 are behaving as if it was never delivered. The principle is clear — even where minimum penalty is prescribed, the officer CAN refuse to impose it if the breach is technical, venial, or flows from bona fide belief.
2. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. [(2022) 7 GSTJ Online 16 (SC)]
The Supreme Court itself dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against the Telangana High Court judgment. The High Court had held that merely because the e-way bill expired — when there was no intent to evade tax and the delay was due to circumstances beyond control (traffic blockage due to agitation) — penalty under Section 129 could not be imposed.
The Supreme Court observed: “It has precisely been found that there was no intent on the part of this writ petitioner to evade tax.”
The penalty was set aside and amounts collected were directed to be refunded.
3. Daya Shanker Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [W.P. No. 12324/2022, Order dated 10.08.2022]
The MP High Court set aside penalty for e-way bill expiry, specifically invoking Section 126:
“The principles of natural justice were statutorily recognized and ingrained in Section 126(1)(3) of the Act. The Lawmakers have taken care of the doctrine of proportionality while bringing sub–section (1) of Section 126 in the Statute Book. The punishment should be commensurate to the breach is the legislative mandate as per sub–section (1) of Section 126.”
E-way bill expired by less than one day due to vehicle breakdown. No deliberate or wilful act. No intention of tax evasion. The Calcutta High Court held that penalty cannot be imposed in such circumstances. The penalty collected was ordered to be refunded.
5. Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar v. Commissioner of CGST [W.P.(C) 8585/2022 — Delhi High Court]
The Delhi High Court specifically directed that while carrying out any exercise, the officer must bear in mind the provision of Section 126 of the CGST Act, which inter alia adverts to omission or mistake in documentation that is easily rectifiable.
Penalty reduced from Rs. 56,00,952 to Rs. 10,000.
The Court held that when there is no allegation or material on record that tax has been evaded, the maximum penalty under Section 122(1)(iii) is Rs. 10,000. The Court criticised the Revenue for not considering Section 126(2) and Section 128 while imposing the penalty.
Goods seized and penalty imposed under Section 129 solely due to a one–digit PIN code error in the e-way bill, while all other documents were valid. The Court held:
As per CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, minor errors such as PIN code mistakes when the address is otherwise correct cannot trigger seizure or penalty.
CBIC circulars are binding on departmental authorities.
In the absence of intent to evade tax, Section 129 proceedings were unsustainable. Seizure and penalty orders quashed. Refund directed.
Late fee under Section 47 was already paid for belated filing of GSTR-9. The department imposed an additional general penalty under Section 125. The Madras High Court held:
“Late fee under Section 47 possesses characteristics of a penal levy. General penalty under Section 125 applies only in the absence of any other penalty, and therefore cannot be imposed where late fee has already been levied.”
Two penal consequences cannot be imposed for the same GST compliance lapse.
9. Tvl. Platinum Marketing — Madras High Court [2026]
Following Kandan Hardware Mart, the Court quashed a general penalty of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. 25,000 CGST + Rs. 25,000 SGST) where the taxpayer had already paid the concessional late fee of Rs. 20,000 for delayed annual returns.
Penalty under Section 129 quashed because SCN, detention, and penalty order were all passed on the same day — leaving no reasonable opportunity for the taxpayer to respond. The Court held: “Procedural lapses without mala fide intent cannot justify harsh penal action, and adherence to principles of natural justice remains paramount.”
A comprehensive analysis of Section 126. The Court held:
“The mandatory command of the Legislature is manifest from Section 126(1) ordaining ‘no officer under this Act shall impose any penalty from minor breaches…’. The moderation which the statute contemplates is further underlined by Section 126(2).”
The Court also examined CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST and held that the Department itself distinguishes between serious violations and minor/procedural infractions.
CBIC CIRCULARS AND INSTRUCTIONS THAT OFFICERS ARE IGNORING
1. CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018
This circular specifically deals with minor discrepancies in e-way bills and provides that in certain situations (wrong PIN code, minor document number errors, HSN errors at 4/6 digit level, etc.), proceedings under Section 129 shall not be initiated. Instead, only a nominal penalty of Rs. 500 each under CGST and SGST (Rs. 1,000 under IGST) should be imposed under Section 125.
The ground reality? Officers are completely ignoring this circular and slapping heavy penalties under Section 129 for the very same minor discrepancies that the CBIC has said should attract only Rs. 500.
2. CBIC Instructions Against Coercive Recovery
The CBIC’s GST Investigation Wing has itself observed that some taxpayers have alleged the use of force or coercion by officers for making recovery during search, inspection, or investigation. The CBIC issued instructions that:
No recovery can be made unless the amount becomes payable in pursuance of an order passed by the adjudicating authority.
In case any complaint is received from a taxpayer regarding use of force or coercion, the same shall be enquired and strict disciplinary action shall be taken against defaulting officers.
3. CBIC Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025 — Monetary Limits
CBIC has prescribed monetary limits for issuance of SCN, adjudication, and imposition of penalties:
Superintendents: Cases up to Rs. 10 lakhs
Deputy/Assistant Commissioners: Cases up to Rs. 1 crore
Additional/Joint Commissioners: Cases exceeding above limits
The fact that CBIC itself has assigned the smallest cases to the lowest level of officers — and prescribed proportional jurisdiction — demonstrates that the system is designed for proportionate enforcement. Yet, in practice, even the smallest cases receive the harshest treatment.
SECTION 128 — THE POWER TO WAIVE PENALTY THAT GOVERNMENT RARELY USES
Section 128. Power to waive penalty or fee or both. —
The Government may, by notification, waive in part or full, any penalty referred to in section 122 or section 123 or section 125 or any late fee referred to in section 47 on such class of taxpayers and under such mitigating circumstances as may be specified therein, on the recommendations of the Council.
This is a powerful provision. The Government has the express power to waive penalties entirely or partially for specified classes of taxpayers under mitigating circumstances. While Section 128A has been used to waive interest and penalties for certain demand notices under Section 73 for FY 2017-18 to 2019-20, the broader power under Section 128 to protect small taxpayers from routine penalties has not been exercised to the extent it should be.
My Suggestion: The GST Council should recommend a notification under Section 128 specifically waiving penalties for taxpayers where the tax involved is less than Rs. 10,000 and there is no fraudulent intent — bringing the administrative practice in line with the legislative intent of Section 126.
THE ROOT CAUSE — TARGET-BASED PENALTY COLLECTION
Let me speak plainly as a practitioner who has seen the workings of the Revenue Department from both sides for over four decades.
The real problem is not the law. The law is perfectly adequate. Section 126 is one of the finest provisions in the GST Act — it embodies proportionality, fairness, natural justice, and common sense.
The problem is the implementation culture:
- Target–based approach: GST officers at the field level are given revenue targets. Penalties are the easiest way to show “revenue collection” in reports. Issuing SCNs and penalty orders to small taxpayers is administratively easy — these taxpayers have no resources to fight back.
- Grievance redressal failure: When bonafide taxpayers file grievances against disproportionate penalties, these grievances are either ignored or disposed of in a mechanical, template-based manner. The officer who imposed the penalty is often the same officer handling the grievance — a clear conflict of interest.
- No accountability for wrong penalties: When a High Court quashes a penalty and directs refund, the officer who imposed the wrong penalty faces no consequences. There is no personal accountability. The message this sends is clear — impose penalties freely, the worst that can happen is the Court will set it aside, but there is no personal cost to the officer.
- Small taxpayers are soft targets: Large taxpayers have the resources to hire senior advocates, approach the High Court, and fight prolonged litigation. Small taxpayers — the petty shop keepers, the small traders, the freelancers — do not. They end up paying the penalty under protest because the cost of fighting Rs. 20,000 penalty in court would be Rs. 50,000 or more.
- Quantity over quality: Officers are focused on the number of penalty orders passed rather than the quality and legality of those orders. A single well-reasoned penalty order against a genuine tax evader would serve the revenue better than a hundred orders against bonafide small taxpayers.
WHAT SHOULD SMALL TAXPAYERS AND PRACTITIONERS DO?
Step 1: File a Detailed Reply to the SCN
When you receive a Show Cause Notice proposing penalty, file a detailed reply invoking:
Section 126(1) — Minor breach (tax involved less than Rs. 5,000) Section 126(2) — Penalty must be commensurate with the breach Section 126(3) — Right to be heard
Section 126(5) — Voluntary disclosure as mitigating factor
Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC) — Penalty is quasi-criminal; not to be imposed for technical/venial breach
CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST — Minor discrepancies attract only nominal penalty Relevant High Court judgments cited in this article
Step 2: If Penalty Is Imposed — File Appeal Under Section 107
Appeal to the First Appellate Authority within 3 months (extendable by 1 month). The appeal fee is nominal and the appellate authority has the power to set aside or reduce the penalty.
Step 3: If Appeal Fails — File Writ Petition Under Article 226
Every High Court in India has consistently quashed disproportionate GST penalties. The jurisprudence is overwhelmingly in favour of the taxpayer. If the penalty is clearly violative of Section 126 and the principles of natural justice, a writ petition is maintainable.
Step 4: File Grievance on the GST Portal and Write to the CBIC
Use the Grievance Redressal Mechanism on the GST portal. Also write to the Principal Chief Commissioner / Chief Commissioner of the Zone. If the grievance is ignored, escalate to the CBIC directly.
Step 5: Demand Personal Accountability
In cases of egregious harassment, demand that the complaint against the officer be enquired as per CBIC’s own instructions. Officers who impose penalties in clear violation of Section 126 and CBIC circulars should face departmental action.
A PLEA TO THE GST OFFICERS AND THE ADMINISTRATION
I write this not as an adversary of the Revenue Department but as a fellow participant in the tax administration system. For 40+ years, I have helped taxpayers comply with the law honestly. I have also helped the Revenue by ensuring proper compliance and proper payment of taxes by my clients.
Section 126 was not put into the statute as decoration. Parliament intended it to be a real, enforceable protection for small and bonafide taxpayers. When officers ignore it, they are not just violating the rights of one taxpayer — they are undermining public trust in the entire GST system.
The GST system was introduced with the promise of ” Good and Simple Tax.” When a shopkeeper with a tax liability of Rs. 3,000 is asked to pay Rs. 20,000 in penalties — with no allegation of fraud, no finding of evasion, no application of mind to the facts — that promise stands betrayed.
I request the CBIC and the GST Council to:
- Issue a specific instruction to all field formations reminding them of the mandatory nature of Section 126.
- Direct that no penalty exceeding the tax involved shall be imposed where the tax involved is less than Rs. 10,000 and there is no allegation of fraud or evasion.
- Provide a mechanism for review of penalty orders where the penalty exceeds the tax demand by a significant margin.
- Hold officers personally accountable for penalty orders that are subsequently set aside by appellate authorities or courts as violative of Section 126.
- Shift the departmental focus from quantity of penalties to quality of enforcement — targeting genuine tax evaders rather than penalising bonafide taxpayers for minor breaches.
SUMMARY TABLE — KEY PROVISIONS AND CASE LAWS
| Provision / Case Law | Key Principle |
| Section 126(1), CGST Act | No penalty for minor breaches (tax < Rs. 5,000) or rectifiable errors without fraud |
| Section 126(2), CGST Act | Penalty must be commensurate with degree and severity of breach |
| Section 126(3), CGST Act | No penalty without opportunity of being heard |
| Section 126(5), CGST Act | Voluntary disclosure is a mitigating factor |
| Section 128, CGST Act | Government may waive penalty by notification |
| Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa (1970 SC) | Penalty is quasi-criminal; not imposable for technical/venial breach or bona fide belief |
| Satyam Shivam Papers v. Asst. Commissioner (2022 SC) |
No penalty where no intent to evade tax |
| Daya Shanker Singh v. State of MP (2022 MP HC) | Punishment must be commensurate to breach — Section 126 mandate |
| Ashok Kumar Sureka v. Asst. Commissioner (2022 Calcutta HC) | Penalty refunded — e-way bill expiry due to vehicle breakdown, no evasion |
| Clear Secured Services v. Commissioner (2023 Allahabad HC) | Penalty reduced from Rs. 56 lakhs to Rs. 10,000 — no tax evasion, only delayed payment |
–
| Provision / Case Law | Key Principle |
| Ashok Kumar Maganbhai Patel v. State of UP (2025 Allahabad HC) | Penalty quashed for one-digit PIN code error in e-way bill — CBIC Circular binding |
| BVM Trans Solutions v. CTO (2025 Karnataka HC) | Section 126(1) is a mandatory command; Section 126(6) does not override Sections 126(1) and (2) |
| Kandan Hardware Mart v. Asst. Commissioner (2026 Madras HC) | Double penalisation (late fee + general penalty) not permissible for same default |
| Tvl. Platinum Marketing (2026 Madras HC) | General penalty quashed where concessional late fee already paid |
| Tractors and Farm Equipment v. UOI (2025 Gujarat HC) | Penalty quashed — SCN and order on same day violates natural justice |
| CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST | Minor e-way bill errors — only Rs. 500 CGST + Rs. 500 SGST penalty; no Section 129 proceedings |
CONCLUSION
The law is on the side of the bonafide small taxpayer. Section 126 of the CGST Act is a powerful provision — it mandates proportionality, prohibits penalty for minor breaches, requires natural justice, and recognises voluntary disclosure. The Supreme Court, multiple High Courts, and the CBIC’s own circulars all support the same principle: penalty must be proportionate to the breach, and no penalty should be imposed for technical or venial breaches committed without fraudulent intent.
The problem is not the law. The problem is that officers are ignoring the law in pursuit of targets. Every practitioner, every tax consultant, and every small taxpayer must know their rights and assert them. The Courts have consistently stood with the bonafide taxpayer — and they will continue to do so.
As the Supreme Court held in Hindustan Steel — and as it remains the law of the land 55 years later — ” Penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so.”
REFERENCES AND SOURCES
1. Section 126 of the CGST Act, 2017 — CBIC Tax Information
2. CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018 — CBIC
3. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC) — AIR 1970 SC 253
4. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner, ST — (2022) 7 GSTJ Online 16 (SC)
5. Daya Shanker Singh v. State of MP — W.P. No. 12324/2022, MP High Court
6. Ashok Kumar Sureka v. Asst. Commissioner — (2022) 7 GSTJ Online, Calcutta HC
7. Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar v. Commissioner of CGST — W.P.(C) 8585/2022, Delhi HC
8. Clear Secured Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — Writ Tax No. 5/2023, Allahabad HC
9. Ashok Kumar Maganbhai Patel v. State of UP — Writ Tax No. 947/2025, Allahabad HC
10. BVM Trans Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CTO — Karnataka HC, 2025
11. Kandan Hardware Mart v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) — Madras HC, 2026
12. Tvl. Platinum Marketing v. Asst. Commissioner — Madras HC, 2026
13. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. Union of India — SCA No. 22073/2019, Gujarat HC, 2025
14. Prajith Enterprises v. State Tax Officer — Madras HC, 2026 — 183 taxmann.com 404
15. CBIC Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025 — Monetary Limits for Adjudication
16. CBIC Instruction on Coercive Recovery — Grant Thornton Summary
17. General Disciplines Related to Penalty in GST — TaxTMI
*****
This article is written from the practitioner‘s perspective based on over 40 years of experience in indirect tax practice. The views expressed are personal and based on the author‘s interpretation of the law and judicial pronouncements. For specific advice on any case, readers are advised to consult their tax advisor.
Author Bio
