LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 18.08.2025
🔥📛 SC to examine Police’s jurisdiction to detain goods under GST; Appoints amicus
➡️ The Supreme Court is examining whether police authorities have jurisdiction, alongside GST authorities, to detain goods in transit for suspected tax violations, particularly under GST law.
➡️ The matter arises from the Calcutta High Court’s decision upholding the sale of seized areca nuts and permitting criminal proceedings against the assessee, which has been challenged before the SC.
➡️ The SC has previously stayed coercive steps in connection with two FIRs filed against the assessee, pending determination of jurisdictional issues.
➡️ During investigation, the registration documents of both consignor and consignee were found to be dubious. The SC has directed Revenue counsel to report on the authenticity of these documents and the present registration status of the firms.
➡️ To resolve the jurisdictional question between police and GST authorities, the SC has appointed a senior advocate as amicus curiae to assist in balancing enforcement powers with the framework of the GST Act.
✔️ SC – Abhishek Kumar Kashyap Etc. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8484-8486/2025]
🔥📛 HC: GSTIN misuse common between DGGI and SGST proceedings; Revives writ solely for investigation
➡️ The Delhi High Court allowed the assessee’s review petition, filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court, but only for examining the allegation of GSTIN misuse.
➡️ The assessee had filed two writs challenging penalty orders from both the Central GST (DGGI) and the State GST authorities. One petition was dismissed earlier for failure to respond to a show cause notice, with the Court directing recourse under Section 107 (appeal).
➡️ The assessee claimed that its GST registration was fraudulently altered to “Netwest Traders” without consent, and fraudulent returns were filed in its name, leading to penalty proceedings.
➡️ Since the alleged misuse of GSTIN was the common issue in both writ petitions, the Court held that any investigation into such misuse would apply equally to Central GST and State GST proceedings.
➡️ The High Court revived the dismissed writ petition, but strictly for the purpose of enabling investigation into the GSTIN misuse allegations, and listed the matter for further hearing on 25 August 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Gurjant Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax [W.P.(C) 5659/2025]
🔥📛 SC judgment invalidating renewal of lapsed provisional attachment order under GST
➡️ The SC held that Section 83 does not permit renewal or re-issuance of a provisional attachment order once it lapses after one year. Allowing such renewal would go beyond the statutory scheme and nullify the safeguard in Section 83(2).
➡️ The Court clarified that provisional attachment is meant only to protect revenue interests during investigation, not as a recovery tool. Re-issuing attachment on the same grounds would misuse this preventive mechanism.
➡️ Unlike the Excise and Customs Acts, the CGST Act does not provide for renewal or extension. The absence of such a provision shows that the legislature consciously limited the life of an attachment order to one year.
➡️ The SC cautioned that repeated issuance of provisional attachments under the guise of “renewal” could create serious anomalies, effectively depriving taxpayers of statutory protection and perpetually freezing assets.
➡️ Following Radha Krishan Industries and noting GST Council’s recognition that attachments cease after a year, the SC directed de-freezing of the assessee’s bank accounts, reinforcing that Revenue cannot extend or revive lapsed attachments.
✔️ SC – Kesari Nandan Mobile vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [CIVIL APPEAL NO 9543 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Quashing consolidated SCN issued to 176-noticees availing fraudulent-ITC, relegates Assessee to Appeal
➡️ The Delhi HC refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that disputes relating to fraudulent availment of ITC must be addressed through the statutory appellate mechanism rather than writ jurisdiction.
➡️ Since ITC was availed through different networks, the Court held that a consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) could not have been issued, as facts of both sets of transactions were distinct and had to be captured separately.
➡️ The SCN disclosed the existence of several non-existent firms that issued goods-less invoices, passing on ITC to 176 noticees during FY 2017–18, highlighting systemic misuse in the early GST years.
➡️ The HC noted a nexus between the present case and another matter involving “Ganpati Polymers,” where two individuals were allegedly operating multiple bogus firms to circulate fraudulent ITC.
➡️ Since ITC disputes involve complex chains of transactions requiring detailed factual analysis, the Court directed the assessee to raise objections before the Appellate Authority, granting time until September 30, 2025 to file an appeal with the mandatory pre-deposit.
✔️ Delhi HC – Shri Sugan Traders vs. Commissioner of CGST & Ors. [W.P.(C) 11091/2025 & CM APPL. 45639/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Absent specific averment on retrospectivity in SCN, cancellation to that effect illegal; Modifies Order
➡️ The Court held that cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect is not valid unless the show cause notice (SCN) specifically proposes such retrospective application and provides clear reasons.
➡️ Referring to Subhana Fashion, Balaji Industries, and Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, the Court reiterated that retrospective cancellation cannot be presumed; it must be justified with cogent reasoning in the SCN and order.
➡️ In this case, the SCN cited non-compliance with Rule 10A (failure to furnish bank account details), but neither the SCN nor the cancellation order gave reasons for retrospective effect, making the retroactive cancellation unsustainable.
➡️ The Court modified the order, holding that cancellation will only take effect prospectively from the date of issuance of the SCN, not retrospectively. However, liberty was given to the Department to re-initiate proceedings if retrospective cancellation is still intended.
➡️ The Assessee was directed to furnish PAN, Aadhaar, address proof, file pending returns with reconciliation (GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A), discharge outstanding tax dues, reverse excess ITC with interest/penalty, and upload proof of payment within two months.
✔️ Delhi HC – Akash Bansal Vs. Superintendent Range – 109 CGST Department [W.P.(C) 3492/2025]
