LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 25.09.2025
🔥📛 Delhi-HC upholds anti-profiteering allegation against HUL’s distributor; Remands Tata Play’s case to GSTAT
➡️ Delhi HC upheld anti-profiteering findings against HUL’s distributor (Vaseline), rejecting the defense of “grammage increase” by relying on the Reckitt Benckiser precedent. Court held that increasing the base price amounted to profiteering. The distributor was directed to deposit the profiteered amount with 6% interest (not 18%), and no penalty was imposed since Section 171(3A) was inoperative at that time.
➡️ Anti-profiteering allegations against Tata Play were segregated and remanded to GSTAT (Principal Bench), to be heard on October 14, 2025. HC clarified that it expressed no opinion on merits, as the issue required factual determination.
➡️ Senior counsel argued that anti-profiteering cannot apply where there is no proportionate increase in purchase turnover or change in MRP. It was highlighted that NAPA’s reliance on DGAP’s report missed net-realization calculations, warranting reconsideration by GSTAT.
➡️ In matters involving FMCG, restaurants (Jubilant Foods, Tata Starbucks, Lite Bite), retailers (Infinity Retail, Croma), and cinemas, Senior Advocate Tarun Gulati emphasized flaws in NAPA’s methodology—such as focusing on a single product (e.g., “Maybelline foundation”) among millions sold, ignoring market pricing and commercial factors.
➡️ HC recorded submissions and fixed November 4, 2025 for further hearing of the FMCG and builders’ batch of cases, signaling continued judicial scrutiny on methodology, scope, and interpretation of anti-profiteering under GST.
✔️ Delhi HC – Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., IFB Industries, Inox Leisure & Ors. vs. UOI, National Anti-Profiteering Authority & Ors. [W.P.(C)-12647/2018]
🔥📛 Madras HC to examine sustainability of Sec-74 orders sans foundational ingredients; Tags matter
➡️ Siemens Gamesa contested show cause notices (SCNs) issued by DGGI Chennai under Section 74 of the CGST Act and TNGST Act, arguing that the proceedings lacked jurisdictional foundation.
➡️ The Petitioner highlighted that the same issues, contracts, and invoices for the same period had already been scrutinized by DGGI Vadodara, culminating in an SCN in 2021, thereby placing all facts within the Department’s knowledge.
➡️ Siemens Gamesa contended that the Chennai SCNs were erroneously based on suppression of facts despite full disclosure in the earlier proceedings, rendering the allegation perverse and unsustainable.
➡️ The initiation of parallel proceedings by a different zonal unit (DGGI Chennai) on identical issues was argued to be an abuse of jurisdiction and a duplication of enforcement.
➡️ The Madras High Court granted an interim stay on the Chennai SCNs, tagged the matter with connected petitions on similar legal issues, and scheduled batch hearings every Wednesday at 2:15 PM.
✔️ Madras HC – Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited, v. Union of India & Ors. [WP No. 34600 of 2025]
🔥📛 SC: Relegates gold dealer to appellate remedy against disallowance of alleged fraudulent ITC
➡️ The assessee, a gold articles dealer, was denied input tax credit (ITC) of ₹8.59 crore by the Gujarat High Court on purchases from alleged bogus suppliers, with liability confirmed under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act.
➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) but allowed the assessee to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority.
➡️ The SC clarified that the assessee is free to urge all grounds, including those raised in the SLP, and that the appellate authority must decide the matter independently, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.
➡️ Scrutiny of GSTR-3B, GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, GSTR-9, and e-way bill data revealed tax evasion through fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression, leading to denial of ITC.
➡️ Recognizing that the assessee had been pursuing the matter before the courts, the SC enlarged the time limit for filing appeal and disposed of all pending applications.
✔️ SC – Krupa Jewellers Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax-3 [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25414/2025]
🔥📛 Parallel proceedings initiated by State authority for same period would be barred under section 6(2)(b): HC
➡️ Under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, once proceedings are initiated by either the Central or State GST authority for a particular period, the other authority is barred from initiating parallel proceedings for the same period.
➡️ In this case, the Central GST authority had already issued a show cause notice to the assessee for FYs 2021–22 and 2022–23, thereby assuming jurisdiction over the matter.
➡️ Despite this, the State GST authority initiated proceedings under Section 70 and passed an order against the assessee, which the Court found to be without jurisdiction.
➡️ On writ petition, the High Court quashed the State authority’s order, holding it contrary to Section 6(2)(b) since jurisdiction was already exercised by the Central authority.
➡️ The Court directed the State GST authorities to hand over all documents and data relating to the assessee to the Central authority, enabling the latter to conclude proceedings initiated via the show cause notice.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Lotus Valley Resort v. Union of India [WRIT TAX No. 3204 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC set-aside cancellation order as same was passed without hearing assessee on merits
➡️ The petitioner’s father, being the sole proprietor of the firm, had obtained GST registration. Upon his demise, the petitioner applied for cancellation by filing Form GST REG-16.
➡️ Despite no pending proceedings against the firm, the department issued a show cause notice (SCN) regarding cancellation of registration.
➡️ The petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN, leading to an order cancelling the registration retrospectively.
➡️ The Court noted that the petitioner was deprived of an effective opportunity to respond, especially considering the proprietor’s demise occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
➡️ The matter was remanded, directing that the petitioner be allowed to file a reply to the SCN, be granted a personal hearing, and that the authority must thereafter pass a reasoned order.
✔️ Delhi HC – Shivi Kansal v. Union of India [W.P. (C) no. 13744 of 2025]
