LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 25.08.2025
🔥📛 ‘No negative terminology’ appears for limitation u/s-107; Demand order condonable beyond outer-limit
➡️ The Court reaffirmed that the right to a first appeal is a substantive and valuable right and cannot be denied merely on limitation grounds, especially where the law does not expressly prohibit condonation beyond a fixed period.
➡️ Unlike other statutes, Section 107(4) contains no restrictive wording such as “not thereafter”; hence, the time limit of 3 months plus a condonable 1 month should be read flexibly, considering circumstances.
➡️ Relying on its earlier decision in August Attorneys, the Court held that limitation begins only when the order is communicated to the assessee, not merely when the order is passed.
➡️ Delay in filing appeal was condonable due to valid reasons, including medical grounds and the assessee’s bona fide request for additional time, reflecting a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach.
➡️ The HC held that orders under Section 74 are appealable, restored the assessee’s right to file appeal, and granted liberty to file by 31st September, reinforcing judicial support for protecting taxpayers’ appellate rights.
✔️ Delhi HC – Pashupati Overseas LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST [W.P.(C) 12745/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Revives law firm’ appeal against registration-cancellation; Interprets Section 107
➡️ The Delhi HC held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act begins only when the cancellation order is communicated to the assessee, not merely when it is passed.
➡️ The Appellate Authority wrongly relied on Section 112 (appeals to Tribunal) instead of Section 107 (appeals to Appellate Authority), leading to dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds.
➡️ The Court restored the assessee’s appeal against GST registration cancellation, subject to a pre-deposit of ₹25,000, thereby ensuring the matter is heard on merits.
➡️ Because of entry and exit of partners, the assessee’s Chartered Accountant could not file GST returns, which triggered the registration cancellation and subsequent appeal issues.
➡️ The HC emphasized that cancellation of GST registration has serious business consequences; therefore, whether the cancellation order was properly served is a factual issue that must be considered before rejecting an appeal.
✔️ Delhi HC – August Attorneys LLP Vs Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 9730/2025]
🔥📛 AAR: Provision of employee’s accommodation-services by Suzuki via third-party classifiable as ‘perquisites’; Deductions not taxable
➡️ Dormitory accommodation provided to permanent employees through third-party service providers, with nominal deductions, was held not liable to GST. The facility is in the nature of an employment-related perquisite, covered by Circular 172/04/2022-GST, and thus outside the ambit of “supply.”
➡️ For student trainees (not on payroll), the accommodation facility is mandatory and not a perquisite. Hence, it qualifies as a taxable supply under GST.
➡️ ITC is not blocked under section 17(5)(g) if the ultimate benefit of the service is to the company, even if employees/students are the immediate beneficiaries. ITC is restricted only where goods/services are used purely for personal consumption.
➡️ ITC on GST charged by accommodation service providers is admissible, but only to the extent of the cost borne by the company. Any part recovered from employees will not qualify.
➡️ Since the company bears the entire cost (including GST on nominal trainee contributions), ITC on GST charged by service providers is fully available to the applicant.
✔️ Gujarat AAR – In the matter of Suzuki Motor Gujarat Pvt Ltd. [ADVANCE RULING NO. GUJ/GAAR/R/2025/29]
🔥📛 SC: Dismisses Revenue’s review petition challenging return of valuable assets seized during search proceedings
➡️ The Delhi High Court, upheld by the Supreme Court, clarified that powers under Section 67 of the CGST Act allow inspection, search, and seizure but do not extend to confiscation of assets merely because they are unaccounted in books.
➡️ Silver bars, currency, and mobile phones seized from the assessee’s residence were directed to be released, as such seizure exceeded the statutory authority under GST law.
➡️ The Court emphasized purposive interpretation of Section 67, holding that the provision’s intent is to secure evidence relevant to tax evasion, not to seize personal valuables per se.
➡️ The Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Delhi HC ruling was earlier dismissed by the Supreme Court, and now its Review Petition was also dismissed, confirming the HC view.
➡️ This ruling restricts the Department’s powers during search proceedings, ensuring that seizure is confined to goods and documents relevant for GST liability, and not extended to arbitrary confiscation of personal assets.
✔️ SC – Commissioner of CGST vs Deepak Khandelwal [Diary No(s). 59521/2024]
🔥📛 Revisional authority can’t improve upon SCN in guise of exercising power of revision: HC
➡️ The State invoked Section 108 to revise an appellate order, alleging that the authority failed to consider the inadmissibility of ITC under Section 16, which would have led to a mismatch of ₹1.11 crore.
➡️ On examination, it was found that the show cause notice under Section 73 did not raise any demand for IGST, and the CGST/SGST demand was lower than what the State sought to revise.
➡️ The proper officer had no jurisdiction to introduce IGST liability or enhance CGST/SGST figures beyond the scope of the original show cause notice.
➡️ Revision under Section 108 is restricted to correcting erroneous orders prejudicial to revenue; it cannot be used as a tool to improve or expand the scope of the show cause notice.
➡️ Since the revision sought to go beyond the original proceedings, the High Court held the State’s petition unjustified and dismissed it.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Dinesh Infraprojects (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [WPA No. 26060 of 2023]
🔥📛 Extension of limitation by Supreme Court during COVID available to litigants and not to authorities: HC
➡️ Facts:
–> For the period 2017–18 to 2020–21, the revisional authority sought to exercise its powers. Under the statute, the limitation for passing a revisional order is 3 years from the date of the order sought to be revised.
–> The petitioner contended that this period expired on 29-11-2024, whereas the revisional order was actually passed on 15-02-2025.
➡️ Contention:
–> The department relied on the Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation (Covid-19 orders), wherein it was directed that the period between 15-03-2020 and 28-02-2022 be excluded in computing limitation.
➡️ Held:
–> The High Court, following its earlier ruling, held that the Supreme Court’s extension of limitation was intended to benefit litigants who had to approach judicial or quasi-judicial fora.
–> Such extension could not be invoked by departmental/administrative authorities for enlarging their statutory powers of revision.
–> Consequently, the revisional order dated 15-02-2025 was held time-barred, as the limitation had already expired on 29-11-2024.
–> The order was therefore set aside.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – Gupthas Constructions Company v. Joint Commissioner, (ST) [WRIT PETITION NO. 19273 of 2025]
