LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 22.07.2025
🔥📛 HC: Bunching of show-cause-notices for multiple years frustrates limitation, amounts to jurisdictional overreach
➡️ The Madras High Court held that issuing a composite show cause notice (SCN) covering multiple financial years, without separate adjudication for each year, violates limitation principles and hinders the assessee’s ability to provide year-specific defenses, thus amounting to jurisdictional overreach.
➡️ The Court clarified that the term ‘tax period’ under the GST law refers to either a monthly or yearly tax period. Show cause notices cannot be issued for periods extending beyond one financial year, rejecting the Revenue’s argument that a ‘tax period’ can encompass multiple years.
➡️ Based on Section 2(106) (defining tax period), the SCN can be issued based on either monthly or annual returns for the relevant financial year or part thereof. If a return covering multiple financial years is filed, a single SCN for those years may be issued; otherwise, SCNs must be specific to individual years.
➡️ Drawing analogy from Section 128 (waiver schemes) and compounding provisions under Section 138, the Court emphasized that bundling SCNs for multiple years causes undue hardship to the assessee, forcing payment of aggregated demands and affecting rights to contest specific years.
➡️ The Court referenced its earlier Titan Industries judgment to underline that composite SCNs affect the assessee’s right to contest issues under Section 73 distinctly from offences under Section 74. It held that SCNs must respect limitation safeguards under Section 74(10) and Section 136, restricting issuance strictly to one financial year, quashing orders arising from composite notices.
✔️ Madras HC – R A and Co vs The Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, South Commissionerate [W.P. No. 17239 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Decrying authorities’ inaction, quashes attachment noting identity theft; Directs Aadhar/PAN details deletion
➡️ The Bombay HC identified that the Assessee’s Aadhaar and PAN details linked to their trade name were misused by third parties to obtain fraudulent GST registrations, causing significant legal and financial harm to the Assessee.
➡️ The Court strongly criticized multiple authorities—including UIDAI, Police, Banks, GST, and Income Tax departments—for ignoring repeated complaints over five years, highlighting a systemic failure to act promptly against identity misuse and fraud.
➡️ The judgment underscores statutory obligations under laws like the Aadhaar Act and RBI guidelines that mandate authorities to investigate and address complaints of identity misuse, emphasizing the need for proactive enforcement.
➡️ Due to the impersonation, the Assessee faced wrongful criminal proceedings, property attachment, and cheque dishonor; the Court called for accountability of negligent authorities and condemned the non-appearance of key tax officials during the hearing.
➡️ The Court ordered deletion of the fraudulent Aadhaar and PAN links from the GST portal, quashed wrongful property attachment, and imposed costs on defaulting authorities, signaling the judiciary’s firm stance on protecting taxpayers’ rights and ensuring enforcement efficiency.
✔️ Bombay HC – Vilas Prabhakar Lad Versus UIDAI & Ors [WRIT PETITION NO. 3586 OF 2021]
🔥📛 SC: Dismisses Revenue’s SLP challenging grant of IDS refund as per modified formula
➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Revenue against the Gujarat High Court’s judgment regarding the use of the ‘modified formula’ under Rule 89(5) for calculating refunds in cases of inverted duty structure.
➡️ The Gujarat HC, following its earlier ruling in Ascent Meditech, held that the amended (‘mended’) formula under Rule 89(5) is clarificatory and curative, and therefore, applicable retrospectively.
➡️ The Gujarat HC found no reason to deviate from its previous decision in Ascent Meditech and accordingly allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee, affirming the retrospective application of the modified formula.
➡️ The Supreme Court noted that although the present petition was filed in June 2025, the Gujarat HC did not mention the dismissal of the SLP filed against the Ascent Meditech order, which the HC had relied upon.
➡️ This judgment reinforces that the ‘modified formula’ in Rule 89(5) can be applied retrospectively for refund calculations involving inverted duty structure, providing clarity and legal certainty for taxpayers claiming such refunds.
✔️ SC – UOI & Ors. vs. Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 31632/2025]
🔥📛 Notices and orders are valid if uploaded on the portal, even if not served physically by post: HC
➡️ The assessee was issued a notice to file GST returns and appear before the concerned officer but failed to submit returns for over six months.
➡️ Due to prolonged non-compliance, the assessee’s GST registration was ultimately cancelled under the provisions of the CGST Act.
➡️ The assessee argued that notices and cancellation orders were not physically sent by post to their address, claiming lack of awareness of such notices.
➡️ The court held that uploading notices on the official GST web portal constitutes sufficient and valid service of notice as per section 169(d) of the CGST Act, 2017.
➡️ Absence of physical postal delivery of notices or orders does not invalidate the proceedings or orders; hence, the cancellation order stood upheld without scope for interference.
✔️ Kerala HC – Latheesh Chovvattapadinhare Kuthirummal v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [WP (C) NO. 16114 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Appeal delay beyond 3 months plus 30 days not condonable; Appellate Authority lacks power to extend time: HC
➡️ The appellate authority’s power to condone delay in filing appeals is limited and explicitly governed by the provisions of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act.
➡️ Appeals filed beyond the prescribed limitation period—three months plus an additional thirty days—cannot be condoned by the appellate authority.
➡️ Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for condonation of delay, does not apply to GST appeals under Section 107(4), as the latter’s language is clear and unambiguous.
➡️ Appeals delayed beyond the maximum permissible extension (three months plus 30 days) are rightly dismissed as time barred without legal error.
➡️ The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that appellate authorities lack the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the prescribed three months plus thirty days limit, affirming the validity of such dismissals.
✔️ Rajasthan HC – Malhotra Agro Industries v. Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17270 OF 2024]
🔥📛 Determination of tax liability on deceased without SCN to legal heir unsustainable: HC
➡️ Section 93 addresses liability for tax, interest, or penalty when a business continues after the proprietor’s death by the legal representative or is discontinued, but it does not authorize making tax determinations against a deceased person directly.
➡️ Issuing a show cause notice and making a demand in the name of a deceased proprietor (or firm) without involving the legal representative renders the proceedings void ab initio (invalid from the outset).
➡️ For liability to arise post-death, a show cause notice must be issued to the legal representative, who must be given an opportunity to respond before any determination is made.
➡️ Liability for tax or penalty after death can only be imposed on the legal representative, following proper notice and procedure, ensuring due process is observed.
➡️ In cases where notice and determination are wrongly made against the deceased without involving the legal representative, courts will quash such orders, allowing the tax authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in compliance with legal requirements.
✔️ Allahabad HC – New Goyal Beej Bhandar v. Assistant Commissioner, Bulandshahar [WRIT TAX No. 2487 of 2025]
🔥📛 ITC can’t be denied just because supplier’s registration was cancelled with retrospective effect: HC
➡️ The petitioner-assessee claimed input tax credit (ITC) for supplies made by a supplier whose GST registration was later cancelled retrospectively. It was undisputed that the supplier’s registration was valid at the time the supply was made.
➡️ Whether the supplier complied with GST provisions, including timely payment of tax and duty, is crucial to determine the assessee’s entitlement to ITC.
➡️ Both the adjudicating authority and appellate authority failed to examine or rule on whether the supplier had fulfilled GST obligations necessary for the assessee to claim ITC.
➡️ The question of whether the supplier had actually paid the GST was a key factual issue that was overlooked, impacting the determination of ineligible ITC.
➡️ Because critical factual and legal determinations were not made, the orders denying ITC and imposing interest and penalty were quashed by the reviewing authority.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Shyamalmay Paul v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [WPA No. 708 of 2025]
