LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 20.08.2025
🔥📛 Rajasthan HC to examine if Additional-Director, DGGI is a ‘proper-officer’; Issues notice, stays SCN
➡️ The petitioner disputes Notification No. 14/2017 and Circular No. 3/3/2017, arguing that vesting the Additional Director, DGGI with powers under Section 74 of the CGST Act is ultra vires Section 2(91) read with Sections 3 and 5.
➡️ It is argued that Section 2(91) vests the power to assign functions only in “the Commissioner” (a statutory authority), not “the Board” itself, making the delegation through Board notifications invalid.
➡️ The HC stayed the operation of the show cause notice (SCN) issued by DGGI, granting interim protection to the petitioner.
➡️ The petitioner relied on the coordinate bench order in Mohit Kirana Store, where a similar challenge to summons issued by DGGI officers was stayed; the HC has tagged the present matter with that case for consolidated consideration.
➡️ Apart from officer appointment, the petitioner contests Para 11 of Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST, claiming it wrongly restricts the concessional 5% GST rate to Chapters 84, 85, and 94, contrary to the broader scope of Entry 234 and Entry 201A of Notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate).
✔️ Rajasthan HC – Acme Cleantech Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11503/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC to decide nature of GSTAT’s jurisdiction over anti-profiteering matters transferred from NAA
➡️ The Delhi High Court is examining whether Anti-Profiteering matters decided by the erstwhile NAPA should now be heard by the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), and if so, the proper manner in which such transfer or adjudication should take place.
➡️ Petitioners argue that since GSTAT is a body with original jurisdiction under GST law, it cannot act as an appellate forum for NAPA’s past orders. If GSTAT is to hear these cases, NAPA’s orders must first be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh adjudication.
➡️ Rules 126, 133, and 176 of the CGST Rules, 2017 are under challenge, with petitioners contending that the continuation of proceedings and the manner of jurisdiction exercised by GSTAT are inconsistent with the scheme of GST law post-NAPA’s abolition.
➡️ The Court noted that NAPA orders involved detailed factual findings on pricing and consumer benefit. It also observed that GSTAT is currently seized of certain Anti-Profiteering cases, including those where NAPA had directed further investigations, many of which may still be ongoing unless restrained by interim orders.
➡️ Given these complexities, the HC has directed parties to seek instructions and file written submissions on the jurisdictional controversy. The matter is listed for further hearing on September 23, 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., IFB Industries, Inox Leisure & Ors. vs. UOI, National Anti-Profiteering Authority & Ors. [W.P.(C) 12647/2018]
🔥📛 HC: Retrospective effect of Mohit-Minerals nullifies statutory-limitation on refund of illegally collected taxes; Grants refund
➡️ The HC held that the assessee’s refund application (filed on 30.03.2023) could not be rejected as time-barred under Section 54 of the CGST Act, since the payment of tax itself was invalid, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohit Minerals.
➡️ The Court clarified that judgments of the Supreme Court declaring law operate both retrospectively and prospectively unless explicitly restricted. As Mohit Minerals did not limit its applicability, the benefit applies to payments made even prior to 19.05.2022.
➡️ Relying on Comsol Energy (Gujarat HC), the Court held that once a tax levy is declared invalid, any payment made is not “tax” but an unlawful collection. Hence, statutory limitation provisions for refund under Section 54 do not apply.
➡️ The Court referred to Baburam v. C.C. Jacob (SC) for the principle of retrospective effect of law-declaring judgments, and to Lenovo India (Madras HC) for the proposition that refunds of illegally collected tax cannot be denied on limitation grounds.
➡️ The rejection orders and appellate rulings were set aside, and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to reconsider the refund applications afresh, without examining limitation, and decide them on merits.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – Louis Dreyfus Company Private Limited vs. UOI & Ors. [WRIT PETITION Nos: 17220, 17224, 17226, 17229 & 17232 of 2024]
🔥📛 GSTAT: Finds L’Oreal distributor guilty of not passing Cosmetics rate-cut benefits; Directs deposit
➡️ GST on cosmetics was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 (Notification 41/2017). DGAP’s investigation found the distributor did not reduce prices across 388 products, instead raising base prices, resulting in profiteering of ₹3.31 lakh plus 18% interest.
➡️ The distributor argued sales were executed via L’Oreal’s centralized software (“Suvidha”), leaving no scope for altering prices, and placed responsibility on the manufacturer. L’Oreal, however, clarified that the distributor, as a separate legal entity, was responsible for passing on GST benefits.
➡️ GSTAT noted that for the earlier period (15.11.2017–31.03.2018), NAA had already rejected the same argument regarding lack of pricing control. Since the distributor had accepted NAA’s order then, GSTAT saw no reason to deviate.
➡️ Submissions, including the distributor agreement with L’Oreal, showed that the distributor had discretion to grant discounts and adjust base/MRP. Hence, the claim that pricing was solely controlled by L’Oreal was untenable.
➡️ GSTAT held that once GST rates were reduced, a presumption of profiteering arises against suppliers who do not pass on commensurate benefits. As no contrary evidence was produced, the distributor was found guilty and directed to deposit profiteered amount with interest into the Consumer Welfare Fund u/s 57 CGST Act.
✔️ GSTAT Delhi – DGAP Vs. Raj & Co. [NAPA/19/PB/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine provisional attachment of property and bank-account towards recovery of dues
➡️ The Delhi HC has issued notice to the Revenue to examine the legality of provisional attachment of property and bank accounts under GST law, signaling judicial concern over its use as a recovery mechanism.
🔥📛 SC to decide whether conservancy services provided to Notified Area Authority, Vapi are exempt from GST
➡️ The case concerns whether services provided to the Notified Area Authority, Vapi qualify for GST exemption under Chapter 99, which exempts pure services to Government, local authorities, or Governmental authorities performing functions under Articles 243G/243W of the Constitution.
➡️ The High Court held that the Notified Area Authority, Vapi is neither a local authority nor a Governmental authority, as it was not shown to be performing functions entrusted to Panchayats (Article 243G) or Municipalities (Article 243W).
➡️ The petitioner argued that the Notified Industrial Area Authority, Vapi, created under Section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, falls within the definition of a Governmental authority. Since its functions include those under Article 243W (e.g., conservancy/municipal services), services provided to it should qualify for exemption.
➡️ The specific service under consideration was conservancy services (municipal in nature), which the petitioner claimed are covered within the exemption for services provided to Governmental authorities carrying out constitutional functions.
➡️ The Court did not decide the issue conclusively but held that the matter required further examination. Accordingly, notice was issued, keeping the question of exemption for services to the Notified Area Authority open for adjudication.
✔️ SC – Nepra Resources Management (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [SLP (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 30566 of 2025]
🔥📛 Interest on delayed refund to be paid from date of order of appellate authority allowing refund: HC
➡️ Under Section 56(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, interest at a rate not exceeding 6% is payable when refund of tax is not granted within 60 days from the date of receipt of a refund application.
➡️ The proviso to Section 56 specifies a higher rate of up to 9% interest, but this applies only when refund claims arise pursuant to an order of an adjudicating authority, appellate authority, tribunal, or court which has attained finality, and are not refunded within 60 days.
➡️ The High Court clarified that the proviso does not override or dilute the main clause. Instead, it supplements it by providing a higher rate of interest in cases of refund consequent to appellate or judicial orders.
➡️ Application of Rates
–> Interest at 6% applies where refund is delayed beyond 60 days from the original application under Section 54(1).
–> Interest at 9% applies where refund is delayed beyond 60 days after a fresh application is filed pursuant to a final appellate or judicial order allowing the refund.
➡️ Since the refund was sanctioned only after the appellate authority allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, interest was payable at 6% for the initial delay (from 60 days after first application) and at 9% for the period after the appellate order attained finality and a fresh refund application was filed.
✔️ Bombay HC – Lupin Ltd. v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 610 OF 2024]
