States GST & VAT - Section 73—Determination of tax—Order passed without providing opportunity of personal hearing to assessee—Validity of Bankey Bihari Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 150 (All-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 2459 (All-HC) States GST & VAT - Section 129—Penalty under section 129—Expiry of e-way bill before reading the goods to destination—No intention to evade tax Vishal Pipes Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 152 (All-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 650 (All-HC) States GST & VAT - Section 75(5)—Determination of tax—Assessee failed to avail opportunity of hearing—Validity of NA Enterprises v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 150 (All-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 2454 (All-HC) States GST & VAT - Section 438—Arrest—Grant of bail—Commission of grave economic offence Sibaram Patra v. State of Odisha (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 140 (Ori-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 1416 (Ori-HC) : (2024) 87 GSTL 149 (Ori) States GST & VAT - Rule 86A(2)—Blocking of electronic credit ledger—Application seeking unblocking of ITC rejected without any reason—Validity of Atulya Minerals v. CST (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 139 (Ori-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 2521 (Ori-HC) States GST & VAT - Section 142—Transitional input tax credit—Un-adjusted TDS utilized for payment of output tax liability—Validity of Fins Engineers & Contractors (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent, CT & CE (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 137 (Ker-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 1700 (Ker-HC) : (2024) 104 GST 642 (Ker):(2024) 87 GSTL 274 (Ker) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant is Goods Trasport Agency. It was about to enter into a contract with their customer for providing service of transport of goods by road. According to the contract between the Respondent and their customer, diesel necessary for transporting goods will be provided by the customer (service recipient) free of charge and used exclusively for the transportation service. The freight cost is determined without including diesel expenses as agreed upon in the contract. The Respondent, a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) shall not responsible for procuring or paying for the diesel filled in the trucks by the service recipient, which is solely for the designated transportation trips. Upon completing the transport service, the Respondent (GTA) will raise the invoice charging the freight charge specified in the consignment note excluding the value of diesel provided at no cost by the customer. The invoice will contain detail of the consignment notes, serving as acceptance of the transportation contract at the agreed rate. The Respondent (GTA) will not record the diesel provided by the customer in their accounts. The applicant sought advance ruling on the following qustion: “Whether the value of diesel provided by the customer (service recipient) to the trucks is to be added to the freight charged by the Applicant for the purposes of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act, 2017’) & the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act (‘RGST Act, 2017’)? The AAR held that the value of diesel filled free of cost (FOC) by the service recipient is not includable in the value of the GTA service proposed to be provided by the Applicant (GTA) in the facts and circumstances of the present application subject to conditions as mentioned in draft Transport Service Agreement/ contract incorporated in the body of this decision/ruling. On being aggrieved with the decision of the AAR, the Revenue filed appeal to the AAAR. RULING : It was observed that Appellant No. 2 filed the appeal proceedings after consideration of the matter by higher authority in the State Tax department, whereas their initial stance was at their own accord sans proper approval from the higher authority. Consequently, we find that an appeal cannot be deemed non-maintainable merely because it contradicts the earlier stance taken by the appellant, under mistaken belief about the jurisdiction and authority. Thus, we hold that Appellant No. 2 has rightfully filed the appeal, rendering the issue of revisiting the previously taken stand as incorrect & improper. It was thus held that the principle of estoppel cannot be made applicable in the instant case. The preliminary objection on this count is, therefore, liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. In view of the above, it was held that that the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent against the appeals filed by the department against the Advance Ruling are not sustainable and the appeals are maintainable and deserve to be decided on merits. The Respondent was, therefore, hereby requested to make submissions on merits and appear for personal hearing as and when fixed. Sunil Giri, In re (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 141 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in supply of Halwa (Sweetmeat) and wants to sell the halwa prepared by them as well as halwa sourced from elsewhere under their brand name. It claimed that Halwa being a sweetmeat is to be classified under this serial number whether packed in container or not. Entry No. 46 of Schedule II of Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017 relates to Namkeens, bhujia, mixture, chabena and similar edible preparations in ready for consumption form. Halwa being a traditional sweet which is like Mithai, does not fall under the Sl No 46 of Schedule II. On a plain reading, it is clear that Halwa whether it is packed or not or whether it is branded or unbranded, is classifiable under Heading 2106 90 99 and taxable at the rate of 5% under Entry No. 101 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether packed halwa purchased from an outsourced manufacturer and marketed under the applicants brand name are classifiable as “Namkeens etc..” and are covered by HSN Code 2106 90 and taxable under Entry 46 of Schedule II of Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017? 2. Whether halwa purchased from a supplier and packed at the applicants facility and marketed under the applicants brand name be classifiable as “Namkeens etc.. and are covered by HSN Code 2106 90 and taxable under Entry 46 of Schedule II of Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017? RULING : 1. No. packed halwa purchased from an outsourced manufacturer and marketed under the applicants brand name are not classifiable as “Namkeens etc..”. They are covered by HSN Code 2106 90 but not taxable under Entry 46 of Schedule II of Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017. 2. No. halwa purchased from a supplier and packed at the applicant’s facility and marketed under the applicant’s brand name is not classifiable as “Namkeens etc... They are covered by HSN Code 2106 90 but not taxable under Entry 46 of Schedule II of Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017. Halwa Haweli, In re (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 136 (AAR) States GST & VAT - Section 83—Provisional attachment of bank account—Vacation of—Maintainability Sant Steel & Alloys (P.) Ltd. v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 135 (Del-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 1411 (Del-HC) : (2024) 104 GST 192 (Del) States GST & VAT - Section 56—Refund—Delay in processing refund application—Allowability of Deep Jyoti Exports (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2025) 121 ITPJ (SG) 134 (Del-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 1299 (Del-HC) : (2024) 87 GSTL 489 (Del)