LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 17.07.2025
🔥📛 GST invoice without customs duty disclosure valid for claiming duty drawback
➡️ The Bombay HC (Goa) ruled that omission of customs duty and surcharge details from invoices cannot disqualify an exporter (assessee) from duty drawback eligibility when evidence confirms that customs duty was factored into the transaction cost.
➡️ The HC affirmed that where an Export Oriented Unit (EOU), here DFCL, clears goods domestically and explicitly states the price includes customs duty and surcharge, the exporter (purchaser) who bears the cost is entitled to claim duty drawback benefits.
➡️ Highlighting Section 21 of CGST Act and Rule 46 of CGST Rules, the HC clarified there is no legal obligation under GST law mandating disclosure of customs duty on the tax invoice, as customs duty claims fall under separate customs and drawback rules.
➡️ The Court identified a “gross illegality” and “erroneous” rejection by GST authorities who mistakenly disregarded provided documentary proof (tax invoices, declarations, and customs challans), emphasizing the duty was indeed embedded in the transaction cost.
➡️ The HC emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice, concluding that the supplier (DFCL) had no incentive to incur losses for the exporter’s benefit, thereby reinforcing the exporter’s legitimate entitlement to the duty drawback claim.
✔️ Bombay HC (Goa) – Sygenta India Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO.664 OF 2024]
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine ‘proper-service’ qua SCN sent to e-mail bearing expired domain-name
➡️ The Petitioner challenged GST proceedings alleging violation of natural justice principles, arguing that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) sent via email was never received because their domain name (‘7sealights.com’) had expired, causing the associated email to become inactive.
➡️ The Petitioner became aware of the pending SCN and associated demands only when visiting the GST department to request cancellation of registration, highlighting potential gaps in the communication method adopted by the department.
➡️ The Revenue defended its actions, contending that it had properly served the notice and the related order through both registered post and email, thus fulfilling procedural compliance for service of notices under GST law.
➡️ The Delhi High Court, however, indicated a preliminary view suggesting potential procedural lapses, observing that if the Petitioner successfully demonstrates non-receipt of notices (both email and registered post), the matter would likely require remanding for fresh adjudication.
➡️ The Court provided interim relief by directing that no coercive actions should be taken against the Petitioner concerning the disputed GST demands until the hearing scheduled for September 23, 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Seven Sea Lights Pvt Ltd v/s The Assistant Commissioner Shahdhara Division, CGST, Delhi East and Ors [W.P.(C) 9791/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC stays multiple proceedings by GST departments questioning inward purchases for same period
➡️ The Delhi High Court has stayed coercive actions initiated by CGST Delhi East, CGST Delhi West, and Delhi State GST departments, noting these departments had concurrently proposed and imposed GST demands for the same inward purchases, creating overlap and duplication.
➡️ Upon reviewing detailed submissions by the petitioner, the Court observed significant overlaps in the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and Orders-in-Original (OIOs) issued by different adjudicating authorities regarding identical transactions and periods.
➡️ The Court has prima facie concluded that multiple departments concurrently demanding GST from the taxpayer for the same transactions is inappropriate and requires a thorough re-examination by the respective GST authorities.
➡️ Recognizing the gravity of the issue, the Court has directed all three GST departments to reconsider their respective assessments and submit brief affidavits clarifying their positions on these overlapping demands.
➡️ The matter is listed for further hearing on September 17, 2025, when the Court will consider the departmental submissions and decide on the legality of simultaneous proceedings initiated by different GST authorities.
✔️ Delhi HC – Laxmi Traders v/s Additional Commissioner and Ors [W.P.(C) 6063/2025]
🔥📛 Assessee’s challenge to Section 74 invocation, having paid dues pre-SCN, warrants no coercive action: HC
➡️ Section 74 can be invoked only in cases involving fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, leading to short/non-payment of tax, erroneous refunds, or wrongful utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
➡️ If GST along with applicable interest has already been paid by the assessee prior to issuance of a show-cause notice, invoking section 74 may be challenged as improper.
➡️ Where similar issues are pending before the Supreme Court, this adds weight to the assessee’s position against invoking stringent measures under Section 74.
➡️ An assessee who effectively challenges the invocation of Section 74 by demonstrating absence of fraud or suppression makes a strong prima facie case for interim relief.
➡️ In such circumstances, courts may grant interim relief, preventing authorities from taking coercive actions based on final orders until further judicial review or hearing occurs.
✔️ Chhattisgarh HC – Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Union of India [WPT No. 90 of 2025]
🔥📛 Assessment order quashed due to several discrepancies in notices regarding assessee’s ITC availment: HC
➡️ The appellate authority’s dismissal of the appeal for delay was upheld, as the appeal was filed beyond the statutory time limit, and thus, rejection on procedural grounds was legally correct.
➡️ Notices preceding the assessment order contained significant discrepancies regarding denial of input tax credit (ITC), potentially affecting the merits of the assessment itself.
➡️ The petitioner failed to reply to the notices issued, resulting in adverse orders from the Deputy State Tax Officer; however, the lack of response does not automatically validate the deficiencies in the notices.
➡️ Considering the defects in the notices and potential merit in the petitioner’s claims regarding ITC, the High Court set aside the original assessment order, granting an opportunity for reassessment.
➡️ The reassessment by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer will proceed subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount, ensuring balanced protection of interests between the taxpayer and the revenue authority.
✔️ Madras HC – Tvl. OM Sri Vinayaga Agencies v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) [W.P.(MD) No.15059 of 2025]
