LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 11 & 12.09.2025
🔥📛 Bombay HC quashes SCNs/orders issued u/R 96(10) & 89(4B), citing lapse of proceedings post-omission
➡️ The Court held that with their omission (effective October 8, 2024) and no saving clause, both pending SCNs and orders under these Rules lose legal basis and cannot be sustained.
➡️ Since the omitted provisions were Rules and not a “Central Act,” Section 6 GCA cannot save pending proceedings; Rules cannot be elevated to the status of an Act merely because framed under one.
➡️ The Rules were not merely procedural; they directly impacted taxpayers’ substantive rights. Their repeal/omission erases them entirely, as if they never existed, except in relation to “transactions past and closed.”
➡️ The Court clarified that only concluded matters before the omission date remain unaffected; SCNs and orders still pending after October 8, 2024, are rendered invalid.
➡️ The repeal and saving clause in Section 174(3) does not operate to protect proceedings under the omitted Rules, leaving such actions without legal backing.
✔️ Bombay HC – Hikal Limited vs UOI & ors [WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Delhi-HC cautions Revenue to search Advocate’s office in exceptional circumstances; Permits safeguarded inspection
➡️ The Court reiterated that documents and data entrusted by clients to their advocate are protected by confidentiality and privilege; GST officials cannot access or inspect such material without the advocate’s presence and consent.
➡️ It was noted that GST officials accessed the petitioner’s CPU and extracted its password in his absence, raising serious concerns of privacy violations and potential compromise of client confidentiality.
➡️ The Court directed that the seized CPU be examined only under stringent safeguards— in the presence of the petitioner, his nominated counsels/forensic expert, Delhi HC IT officials, and a GST forensic expert. Hard drive cloning was mandated, with one copy retained by the petitioner.
➡️ Only client-related files concerning Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. may be shared with GST; all third-party client data is barred from being accessed, opened, or used by GST officials.
➡️ GST authorities must file a redacted affidavit disclosing allegations and the petitioner’s role (non-redacted copy for Court’s review). Until further orders, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. The matter is listed for hearing on 30 October 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors.[W.P.(C) 11021/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine IGST refund rejection over ‘risky exporter’ tag, despite supplier verification
➡️ The assessee’s IGST refund claim of approx. ₹21 crore was rejected by the Appellate Authority solely on the ground of being categorised as a “risky exporter” by DGRAM, despite the claim having been initially sanctioned.
➡️ The SIIB had verified 14 suppliers, covering 75.62% of the claimed ITC (₹43.81 crore out of ₹57.93 crore), establishing that a substantial portion of the credit was duly examined.
➡️ The High Court noted that once such a significant part of the ITC had been verified, the Appellate Authority was required to apply its mind and could not mechanically reject the entire refund claim.
➡️ The Court directed Revenue to obtain instructions, file an affidavit addressing the substantial refund claim, and clarified that any refund already disbursed would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
➡️ The Court ordered that no coercive steps for recovery be taken against the assessee and fixed the matter for further hearing on December 9, 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Hamstead International Pvt. Ltd. & anr. vs Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals II, Delhi & ors. [W.P.(C) 13823/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC to decide refund-claim of tax-deposited under protest after dropping of notice
➡️ The petitioner argued that since the Proper Officer dropped the show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, the tax earlier deposited under protest should be refunded.
➡️ Despite no finding of liability, the authorities appropriated the tax deposited under protest and the Delhi GST Department continued issuing notices.
➡️ The petitioner stressed that appropriation before a determination of liability violates due process, as there was no adjudication justifying retention of the deposit.
➡️ A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja took note of the grievance, sought counter affidavits from both the Central and State GST Departments, and highlighted the need for clarity on refund entitlement.
➡️ After a preliminary hearing, the matter is listed for detailed arguments on 03 November 2025, where the Court will examine whether refund is a natural consequence of dropped proceedings.
✔️ Delhi HC – Newgen Partners vs. UOI & Ors. [W.P.(C) 6992/2024]
🔥📛 Delhi HC restrains Revenue from opening CCTV footage seized during search, recognizes privacy concerns
➡️ The Petitioner contested the search and seizure conducted at their residence and business premises by CGST Delhi East (with CGST Noida’s assistance), questioning the legality of the process.
➡️ The grievance centered on seizure of CCTV recordings from private residential areas, particularly footage involving female family members, argued to be an unauthorized intrusion and violation of the constitutional right to privacy.
➡️ The High Court took note of the concerns and directed that the seized CCTV memory cards and recordings shall not be opened or accessed until further orders.
➡️ The Court acknowledged the Petitioner’s grievance over the sealing of business premises and seizure of personal electronic gadgets, ensuring these issues remain under judicial scrutiny.
➡️ The Registry was directed to club nine connected petitions of the Petitioner; an official from CGST East Commissionerate who was present during seizure was asked to remain available for assistance; all matters are listed for 15th September 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Genesis Enterprises vs Principal Commissioner, CGST Delhi East [W.P.(C) 13821/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Pulls-up officer for not-enforcing recent judicial-pronouncement; Directs to structure a road-map for legal-updates
➡️ The officer wrongly invoked Section 130 (confiscation proceedings) for excess stock instead of initiating action under Sections 73 or 74 (demand and recovery), showing a lack of legal understanding.
➡️ Despite the High Court’s earlier ruling in Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, which clarified the issue, the concerned officer failed to follow binding judicial directions while passing the impugned order.
➡️ The High Court imposed a personal cost of ₹5,000, to be recovered directly from the officer’s salary and paid to the petitioner, highlighting judicial intolerance for non-compliance.
➡️ The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, U.P. to file a personal affidavit explaining why State officers are disregarding writ court orders.
➡️ The Court mandated the State to prepare and circulate a structured roadmap ensuring that all GST officers remain updated on judicial pronouncements, preventing recurrence of such lapses.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Rajdhani Udyog vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. – 3684 of 2025]
🔥📛 GSTAT: Inflationary pricing during COVID not a valid defence; Directs Hotel-Babylon to pay profiteered amount
➡️ GSTAT upheld DGAP’s findings that Hotel Babylon Inn failed to pass on the GST rate reduction (effective 01.10.2019) to consumers on accommodation services, profiteering ₹31,28,631/-. The assessee is directed to deposit this amount with 18% interest into the Consumer Welfare Funds of Centre and States in equal proportion.
➡️ The tribunal reiterated that any GST rate reduction or ITC benefit must be mandatorily passed on to the ultimate consumer, as envisaged under Section 171 of the CGST Act. It emphasized that restrictive or narrow interpretations cannot dilute this benevolent statutory intent.
➡️ Claims that increased costs due to COVID-19 sanitization or market dynamics justified unchanged tariffs were rejected. GSTAT termed them afterthoughts lacking evidence, citing the Reckitt Benckiser ruling to stress that market forces cannot be invoked to sidestep the statutory obligation of commensurate price reduction.
➡️ GSTAT approved DGAP’s approach of calculating profiteering based on average base prices from the pre-rate reduction period (3 months) compared with actual post-reduction prices for each room category. The tribunal clarified this was a fair mechanism to test profiteering, not a rigid formula.
➡️ The tribunal underscored that profiteering is simply the act of retaining financial gain by not passing on GST benefits. It sought a compliance report from jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioners, ensuring strict enforcement of anti-profiteering provisions.
✔️ GSTAT Delhi – DGAP Vs. Hotel Babylon Inn [NAPA/35/PB/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Upholding consistent exporter status for IDP-Education-India, rejects Revenue’s ‘intermediary’ claim; Directs refund
➡️ Rajasthan HC (Jaipur) directed refund of IGST to IDP Education India for services provided to IDP Australia, remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for processing within 4 weeks along with applicable interest.
➡️ Court rejected Revenue’s inconsistent stance, holding that since the petitioner was already treated as an exporter in other State jurisdictions, a different view could not be justified in Rajasthan.
➡️ The HC clarified that “intermediary” requires involvement of three parties. Here, IDP India had no contractual relationship with foreign universities or students; services were rendered solely to IDP Australia under a bi-partite agreement.
➡️ Court observed that the arrangement resembled sub-contracting of services, delivered on a principal-to-principal basis, rather than facilitation or mere arrangement between third parties.
➡️ On these grounds, the HC concluded that the petitioner’s services qualify as “export of services” under GST, thereby entitling them to refund of IGST paid.
✔️ Rajasthan HC – Idp Education India Pvt. Ltd Vs Union Of India &Ors [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9933/2024]
🔥📛 HC: Allows Flipkart cash-refund of pre-deposit paid in part cash, part ITC; Stresses Section-142 scope
➡️ Karnataka HC held that pre-deposit amounts made during VAT appeals—whether in cash or through ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL)—must be refunded in cash, along with interest, once the assessee succeeds in appeal.
➡️ The Court emphasized that various sub-sections of Section 142 consciously use the phrase “refund in cash”. Therefore, no distinction can be drawn between payments made in cash or via ITC/ECL; both qualify for refund in cash when proceedings conclude in the taxpayer’s favour.
➡️ Revenue relied on Circular No. GST-03/2018-19 (April 16, 2018) to restrict ITC-based refunds to re-credit in ECL. HC rejected this, noting that if law permits payment/recovery through cash or ITC, refunds must mirror that and be made only in cash.
➡️ Since the department consciously accepted 70% of the pre-deposit through ITC/ECL without objection, it cannot later rely on the 2018 Circular to deny cash refund. Sections 142(7)(b) and 142(8)(b) further support cash refund entitlement.
➡️ The Court clarified that Rule 92(1A), which provides for re-credit of ITC in the ECL, applies prospectively from March 23, 2020. It cannot affect pre-deposit payments made through ITC/ECL for earlier periods (2011–2015 in this case).
✔️ Karnataka HC – Flipkart India Private Limited Company vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & ors [WRIT PETITION NO. 7277 OF 2025 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 GSTAT: Directs P&G to deposit profiteered amount on sanitary-pads; Disallows 18% interest citing Rule-133(3)(c ) prospectivity
➡️ GSTAT upheld that Procter & Gamble profiteered ₹6,88,770 by not passing on the GST rate reduction on sanitary pads (from 12% to NIL) to consumers.
➡️ The profiteered amount was directed to be deposited into the Consumer Welfare Fund, in line with anti-profiteering provisions.
➡️ GSTAT ruled that the 18% interest on profiteered sums under Rule 133(3)(c) applies only prospectively, i.e., to cases arising after the amendment through Notification No. 31/2019-CT (effective June 28, 2019).
➡️ The Tribunal relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Vatika Township to hold that the interest clause is not clarificatory but a substantive provision, and thus cannot be applied retrospectively.
➡️ GSTAT accepted the DGAP’s computation of profiteering but restricted relief to the principal amount, excluding the levy of 18% interest.
✔️ GSTAT Delhi – DGAP Vs. Proctor & Gamble Group [NAPA/13/PB/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Bombay HC allows challenge to adjudication orders without insisting on appellate remedy
➡️ While the MGST Act provides an appellate remedy, the High Court held that writ jurisdiction can be invoked where principles of natural justice are violated.
➡️ The Court found that adjudication orders under Section 74 were passed without granting effective personal hearings, despite the assessee’s express requests.
➡️ Emphasised that the opportunity of personal hearing is integral to fair adjudication, and denial thereof renders orders unsustainable in law.
➡️ The impugned orders were set aside and matters remanded back to the concerned authorities to be decided afresh after granting reasonable hearing.
➡️ The assessee must cooperate in the fresh proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments, with all contentions on merits left open.
✔️ Bombay HC – MRJS Lead Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO.6247 OF 2024]
🔥📛 HC: Directs refund with interest wrongly adjusted against cancelled demand
➡️ The assessee’s sanctioned refund of ₹9.09 lakhs was wrongly appropriated against an alleged outstanding liability of ₹10.71 lakhs based on an order dated September 18, 2023.
➡️ Revenue admitted in its counter affidavit that the related demand of ₹12,10,668 had already been cancelled in Form GST DRC-8A, but the cancellation was not reflected on the AIO portal.
➡️ The Court highlighted that the liability stood cancelled much earlier, and the subsequent departmental letter of April 10, 2024 confirming “quashing outstanding portal” only acknowledged this fact after the erroneous appropriation.
➡️ Since the liability no longer survived, the Court held that the assessee’s refund claim was valid and payable without being subject to any set-off.
➡️ The Revenue was directed to process and release the refund with statutory interest strictly in accordance with law, within two months.
✔️ Delhi HC – Harbhajan Singh Thukral Vs. Government of NCT Delhi Dept. of Trade and Taxes & Anr. [W.P.(C) 3967/2025]
