LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 23.09.2025
🔥📛 Madras HC’s interim relief to Arcellor-Mittal in parallel audit by Central-Authorities; Impleads State Dept.
➡️ The assessee contested the Central GST audit notice (Form GST ADT-01) for FYs 2018-19 to 2022-23, arguing that the same period had already been audited by the State GST authorities, resulting only in a minor penalty for FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23.
➡️ It was submitted that once proceedings on the same subject matter are concluded by State authorities, further proceedings by Central authorities are barred, as per Section 6(2)(b).
➡️ The assessee placed reliance on para 97(b) of the Armour Security ruling, where the SC clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies if parallel proceedings arise and the taxpayer has duly informed that proceedings have already been concluded by State authorities.
➡️ Observing merit in the assessee’s claim of parallel proceedings and violation of Section 6(2)(b), the Court held that a prima facie case was made out and granted an interim stay on the impugned Central GST audit notice dated 07.04.2025.
➡️ Recognizing that the State GST Department is a necessary party for effective adjudication, the Court impleaded the State Tax Officer suo motu and listed the matter for further hearing.
✔️ Madras HC – ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, GST & Ors. [W.P. No. 33010 of 2025]
🔥📛 Gujarat HC to rule on IGST-refund claim of amalgamating company for pre-amalgamation exports
➡️ Refund claims originally sanctioned to the amalgamating company for pre-amalgamation exports were overturned by the Appellate Authority, which held neither the amalgamated entity (not the exporter) nor the transferor entity (ceased to exist) could validly claim.
➡️ Once the NCLT order took effect, the amalgamating company legally ceased, and any refund filed thereafter was invalid. The amalgamated company was equally ineligible as it had not undertaken the exports.
➡️ The transferor entity remains alive and distinct until the date of amalgamation order and cancellation of its GST registration. Hence, refunds filed in its name before cancellation were valid.
➡️ The assessee invoked Indus Towers (under pari materia GVAT provisions), supporting the view that registration cancellation under Section 29 read with Rule 22 is not automatic; until cancellation, the transferor’s registration remains active for statutory purposes.
➡️ Recognizing practical challenges in filing refunds through the amalgamated company, the Court issued notice for final disposal (25 Sept 2025) and directed Revenue to seek instructions.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Alstom Transport India Limited vs Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise (Appeals) & ors.[ R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11025 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Upholds surprise inspection, accessing WhatsApp, electronic- devices under exceptional-circumstances with safeguards u/s-67
➡️ The High Court upheld the search and seizure operations under Section 67 of the CGST Act, noting that the statutory precondition of “reason to believe” was duly recorded. Surprise inspections are permissible when authorities suspect suppression of transactions, wrongful ITC claims, or undeclared/illegally transported goods, and even superdari seizure is allowed.
➡️ The Court clarified that under Section 67(12), the Commissioner or an authorized officer can undertake trap purchases to detect tax evasion, reinforcing the wide scope of investigative powers under GST law.
➡️ While WhatsApp communications with taxpayers were discouraged (except in emergencies) to avoid allegations against officials, the Court emphasized that searches must comply with CrPC safeguards. Seized electronic devices (CCTV, hard drives, etc.) can only be accessed in the presence of the taxpayer, with directions also issued on copying CCTV footage to balance privacy concerns.
➡️ Entry into premises using keys provided by tenants was held permissible, especially since the assessee’s request for de-sealing was later acceded to. However, the Court directed that future access must follow Section 67(4) procedures if direct consent is not available.
➡️ On claims of forced DRC-03 payments and refund withdrawals, the Court observed conflicting versions between taxpayers and GST officials. Given the complex web of entities involved, the issue requires deeper examination in appropriate proceedings. At the investigation stage, no coercion was conclusively established.
✔️ Delhi HC – Genesis Enterprises & Ors. vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST Delhi East & Ors. [W.P.(C) 13821/2025]
🔥📛 SC: Relegates gold dealer to appellate remedy against disallowance of alleged fraudulent ITC
➡️ The assessee, a gold dealer, was denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹8.59 crore by the Gujarat HC on the ground that purchases were made from alleged bogus suppliers, based on scrutiny of returns (GSTR-3B, GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, GSTR-9) and e-way bill data.
➡️ The HC upheld the order passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, finding that tax had been wrongly availed/short-paid due to fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP), holding that the assessee should pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
➡️ While relegating the assessee to appeal, SC clarified that the appellate authority must independently consider all grounds raised, uninfluenced by HC observations.
➡️ Recognizing that the assessee had been prosecuting its claim before HC and SC, the Supreme Court enlarged the time limit to file an appeal, ensuring no prejudice in availing the statutory remedy.
✔️ SC – Krupa Jewellers Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax-3 [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25414/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Rejects AAI’s technical reasons for TRAN-1 non-filing; Relegates to Appellate remedy
➡️ AAI’s transitional CENVAT credit claim of ₹9.34 crore via TRAN-1 was rejected as it neither reflected in ST-3 returns nor was supported by invoices/payment proofs, despite repeated opportunities from the department.
➡️ AAI argued that GST transition issues prevented compliance—ST-3 return could not be revised beyond once due to portal restrictions, and invoices from 137 airports nationwide could not be collated within the shortened 45-day timeline under Notification No. 18/2017-ST.
➡️ HC held that mere portal transition was not the sole reason for rejection; the core issue was the assessee’s failure to substantiate the claim with documents for the full amount of ₹9.34 crore.
➡️ Supreme Court precedents in Aberdare Technologies (2025) and Filco Trade Centre (2023), which granted relief for genuine software glitches, were distinguished—AAI’s lapse went beyond portal issues to non-submission of supporting evidence.
➡️ Since the adjudication order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, HC declined interference but allowed AAI liberty to file an appeal with the requisite pre-deposit, directing that limitation should not bar such appeal.
✔️ Delhi HC – Airports Authority of India v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 643/2024]
🔥📛 HC quashed order as date of personal hearing was fixed much before submission of reply to SCN
➡️ The show cause notice (SCN) specified the reply due date as 17-08-2020 but fixed the personal hearing earlier on 24-07-2020, effectively denying the assessee a fair chance to present its case.
➡️ Without waiting for the assessee’s reply, the authority proceeded to pass the assessment order ex-parte, disregarding principles of natural justice.
➡️ The assessee’s appeal against the ex-parte order was rejected, prompting further challenge before the High Court.
➡️ The Court applied rulings in Excellence Trades & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Swiftline Transport Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., both of which emphasized that opportunity of hearing cannot precede the filing of reply.
➡️ The impugned orders were quashed, and the assessing authority was directed to issue a fresh SCN, thereby reaffirming that GST proceedings must strictly comply with the right to be heard.
✔️ Allahabad HC – R.P. Industries v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. 811 and 813 of 2022]
🔥📛 HC directs Dept. to grant 30 days to file reply to SCN as one day’s notice for hearing was violative of natural justice
➡️ DGGI initiated an investigation uncovering discrepancies, including alleged tax evasion, leading to a show cause notice (SCN) against the assessee.
➡️ The assessee argued that the investigation targeted multiple companies, not solely it; further, no proper pre-notice consultation under Rule 142 was provided, and only one day’s notice for hearing was given.
➡️ The court held that since the assessee consistently maintained that all tax had already been paid and no further liability existed, pre-notice consultation would have served no purpose. Thus, the challenge under Rule 142 was rejected.
➡️ Granting just one day’s notice for hearing was deemed a breach of natural justice, as the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to respond.
➡️ The court directed that the assessee must be given 30 days to file a reply to the SCN and a proper opportunity of personal hearing before any further action is taken.
✔️ Delhi HC – Dawn Express Courier Del (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 12832 of 2025]
🔥📛 Services provided to foreign university for student enrolment not intermediary services; refund allowed: HC
➡️ The petitioner, an Indian subsidiary of an Australian company, provided counselling, enrolment, and guidance services to students aspiring to join foreign universities, but contractually rendered these services only to the Australian parent company.
➡️ Authorities treated the petitioner as an intermediary, holding that the place of supply was India, thereby denying classification as export of services and refusing refund of IGST.
➡️ The Court reiterated that an intermediary relationship requires three distinct parties; in the absence of such tripartite arrangements, the service provider cannot be treated as an intermediary.
➡️ Since the petitioner neither had a role in student admissions nor contractual relations with universities or students, its services were solely to the Australian company under a bipartite contract, qualifying as export of services.
➡️ The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for refund processing, with a direction to pay IGST refunds along with applicable interest.
✔️ Rajasthan HC – IDP Education India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9933 and 9967 of 2024]
