LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 02.09.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC permits return rectification beyond due-date, for aligning IGST-amount post shipping-bill amendment
➡️ Delhi HC allowed amendment of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B even after the expiry of statutory timelines, to correctly reflect IGST on exports.
➡️ Court directed GST authorities to allow amendments; if the GST portal does not permit, corrections must be carried out manually by officials.
➡️ Since the fact of export and receipt of foreign exchange was undisputed, refund could not be denied merely due to portal errors in reporting IGST.
➡️ Court relied on Gujarat HC (Auracare Pharma) and Punjab & Haryana HC (Satyam Auto Components), both permitting rectification of GST returns to enable legitimate refund claims.
➡️ Recognizing errors in shipping bills during GST rollout (2017-18) and subsequent Customs amendments (2021), HC allowed assessee to approach Revenue for necessary compliance to secure IGST refund.
✔️ Delhi HC – Shine Shipping Company vs. UOI & Ors. [W.P.(C) 5592/2022]
🔥📛 HC: Absent appeal, withholding sanctioned refund merely on Commissioner’s opinion, invalid; Directs swift processing
➡️ The Court held that once a refund is sanctioned by the Appellate Authority, it cannot be stopped merely on the basis of the Commissioner’s opinion under Section 54(11) of the CGST Act, unless there is a pending appeal or proceeding against the order.
➡️ The Revenue’s view that refund would adversely affect revenue cannot justify withholding in the absence of any filed appeal, review order, or stay against the Appellate Authority’s decision.
➡️ Since the Appellate Authority allowed refund for FY 2019-20 and no appeal/stay exists, the Department is bound to implement the order and process the refund.
➡️ The Court reiterated that taxpayers’ refund rights, once upheld in appellate proceedings, cannot be denied merely because the Department intends to file an appeal in the future.
➡️ The Department was ordered to release ₹83.46 lakh refund with applicable interest under Section 56 by September 30, 2025, subject to adjustment if any future appellate order overturns the refund sanction.
✔️ Delhi HC – Omega QMS. vs Commissioner, Cgst, Delhi West & Anr [W.P.(C) 11815/2025]
🔥📛 HC allows assessee to file separate appeal against two penalty orders as mistake of assessee was genuine
➡️ The assessee’s consignments were transported in two different lorries, leading the department to issue two distinct penalty orders under separate proceedings.
➡️ The assessee filed only one appeal, referencing one penalty order, but raised common grounds applicable to both orders.
➡️ The appellate authority dismissed relief against the second penalty order, holding that only one appeal was filed.
➡️ The court recognized that the assessee’s failure to file two appeals was a genuine mistake, since the grounds were composite and intended to challenge both orders.
➡️ The court allowed the assessee to file a formal separate appeal against the second penalty order within 15 days, ensuring fair opportunity to contest both penalties.
✔️ Madras HC – Tvl. Viridis Engineering India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy State Tax Officer (Int), Madurai [W.P. (MD) No. 22070 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC directs tax official to communicate reasons for cancellation of GST registration as SCN was cryptic in nature
➡️ The GST department issued a show cause notice (SCN) proposing cancellation of registration, citing the reason as “Supplies Received from Cancelled Party.”
➡️ The SCN was found to be vague and lacking essential details, making it impossible for the assessee to understand the exact allegations.
➡️ The Court held that an SCN for cancellation of registration must clearly communicate the factual basis and reasons for cancellation.
➡️ Without proper details in the SCN, the assessee is deprived of the opportunity to file a meaningful reply or defense.
➡️ The department was directed to issue a fresh, reasoned SCN containing necessary particulars, and the assessee was permitted to respond after receiving it.
✔️ Delhi HC – Arun Mittal v. Commissioner Department of Trade and Taxes Govt of NCT Delhi [W.P.(C) No. 12314 of 2025]
🔥📛 DRC-01 summary can’t replace SCN u/s 73(1); order passed without issuance of SCN to be quashed: HC
➡️ A proper show-cause notice (SCN) is mandatory before initiating proceedings under Section 73. A summary of SCN in Form GST DRC-01 cannot replace the statutory requirement of issuing a detailed SCN.
➡️ Uploading a statement of determination of tax does not absolve the authority from issuing a proper SCN; the two are distinct requirements under the law.
➡️ Forms GST DRC-01, DRC-02, and DRC-07 serve only as summaries of the SCN, statement, and order respectively. They do not substitute the original documents mandated by the GST Act.
➡️ The impugned order was vitiated since no opportunity of hearing was granted, contrary to Section 75(4), which expressly requires a chance for the taxpayer to be heard.
➡️ The summary SCN and the consequential order were quashed. However, the authorities were granted liberty to initiate de novo proceedings under Section 73, if considered necessary.
✔️ Gauhati HC – Air Transport Corporation Assam (P.) Ltd. v. State of Assam [WP(C) No. 470 of 2025]
