LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 01.10.2025
🔥📛 HC: Form GST ASMT-10 notice mandatory before issuing SCN u/s 73 for returns scrutiny
➡️ The Court held that initiation of proceedings under Section 73 must be preceded by scrutiny of returns under Section 61. This requires issuance of Form GST ASMT-10 to confront discrepancies. Since this was not done, the SCN was deemed without jurisdiction.
➡️ Revenue’s failure to issue Form ASMT-10 before proceeding under Section 73 was considered a clear violation of statutory procedure. The HC relied on Rajasthan HC in Goverdhandham Estate (affirmed by SC) to declare such action unauthorized and void.
➡️ The SCN was based on mismatch between the annual return and reconciliation statement due to non-furnishing of Table 14 of GSTR-9C. Since filing Table 14 was optional for FY 2017-18, absence of such data could not legally constitute a discrepancy.
➡️ The Court emphasized that GST is a self-assessment regime. Verification of correctness of returns can only be done through Section 61 scrutiny, and any conclusion of wrongful ITC availment must flow from this process. Without following it, Section 73 jurisdiction cannot be assumed.
➡️ As the Revenue invoked Section 73 without complying with mandatory Section 61 procedures, the HC ruled the entire proceedings—including the SCN for ITC mismatch of ₹19.5 crores—unauthorized and contrary to law.
✔️ Gauhati HC – PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI & 3 Ors. [WP(C)/6960/2023]
🔥📛 Delhi-HC judgment holding non-passing of rate-cut benefits by increasing quantity amounts to ‘deception’
➡️ The Court upheld the NAA’s finding that the Assessee profiteered by not reducing the price of Vaseline VTM 400 ml after GST was reduced from 28% to 18% (Notification No. 41/2017). Instead, the base price was increased while the MRP remained unchanged.
➡️ The argument that increasing grammage/quantity (from 300 ml to 400 ml) justified maintaining the same MRP was rejected. The Court held that GST benefit must be passed on through actual price reduction, not by increasing quantity or offering promotional schemes.
➡️ Once the effective date of a rate cut is notified, manufacturers/retailers cannot delay compliance on grounds of transitional or operational difficulties. Even if MRPs are unchanged, the GST component must reduce immediately, ensuring consumer benefit.
➡️ The Court emphasized that safeguarding consumer rights is the core of anti-profiteering provisions. Commercial realities may exist, but they cannot override the statutory obligation to pass on tax benefits directly to consumers.
➡️ Reinforcing NAA’s powers, the Court noted that defaulting businesses may face orders to reduce prices, refund/ deposit undue gains to the Consumer Welfare Fund, imposition of penalties, and even cancellation of GST registration.
✔️ Delhi HC – Sharma Trading Company v. Union of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 13194/2018]
🔥📛 HC: Calling-out GST-portal glitch of generating personal-hearing notice after decision on appeal, directs for fresh hearing
➡️ The Delhi High Court quashed the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) as notices of personal hearing were not uploaded on the GST portal, depriving the assessee of a fair hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
➡️ The SCN (2019-20) alleged a difference of ₹9.16 crore between output sales and inputs, treated as value addition, leading to a tax demand of ₹1.10 crore payable in cash.
➡️ Revenue admitted that non-uploading of notices during OIA led the system to auto-generate a fresh personal hearing notice post-OIA, causing a procedural anomaly.
➡️ HC highlighted that remands are warranted where assessees have not been granted an opportunity of personal hearing, especially when time-extension notifications on adjudication are sub-judice before HC/SC.
➡️ The Court disposed of the writ by directing the assessee to appear before the Appellate Authority afresh, with a clear mandate that personal hearing notices must also be served via email to avoid recurrence of such lapses.
✔️ Delhi HC – Tahiliani Design Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(C) 14406/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Disposes-off writ against multiple-proceedings with a direction to follow Armour Security guidelines
➡️ The assessee (engaged in extraction and sale of soya bean products) challenged multiple proceedings—summons under Section 70 issued by the DGGI, Bhopal, despite a pending show cause notice under Section 74 from the CGST Ujjain Commissionerate on the same ITC issue.
➡️ The Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier directed the Revenue to maintain status quo and not to take coercive action, thereby safeguarding the assessee during pendency of the writ petition.
➡️ The HC emphasized the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Armour Security Ltd., which restricts initiation of multiple investigations/enquiries by different authorities on the same subject matter under GST.
➡️ The Court clarified that once proceedings are initiated by one authority, another authority cannot start parallel proceedings on the same issue. Any further action must be tested against Section 6(2)(b) in light of the SC’s guidelines.
➡️ The assessee must appear before the Additional Assistant Director, DGGI with all documents. After verification, the officer must decide—strictly as per the SC’s Armour Security ruling—whether to continue or drop further proceedings.
✔️ Madhya Pradesh HC – Agrawal Soya Extracts Pvt. Ltd Vs Union Of India And Others [WRIT PETITION No. 4284 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Remands back to Original Authority for assessing documents of Financial Year 2017-18
➡️ The Court recognized that in July 2017, when GST was newly introduced, taxpayers faced significant technical and procedural difficulties, including errors in reporting liability, ITC availment, and reverse charge mechanism declarations.
➡️ The assessee contended that there was no option in the GST portal to edit or correct GSTR-3B returns for FY 2017-18, leading to discrepancies that surfaced only during later assessments in 2022.
➡️ Under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, the Appellate Authority cannot remand matters back to the Original Authority—it may only confirm or set aside the order. Thus, reassessment of documents is outside its jurisdiction.
➡️ The HC emphasized that the Original Authority alone has the power and duty to examine supporting documents and rectify discrepancies, given the constraints on the Appellate Authority’s scope.
➡️ Accordingly, the Court quashed the demand order and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication, directing consideration of all documents that could not be placed earlier due to portal and procedural limitations.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr. [WRIT PETITION NO. 26345 OF 2025 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 HC: Cross-empowerment automatic unless Govt. notifies conditions; Central-officers can issue SCN despite State GST assignment
➡️ The J&K and Ladakh High Court held that officers of both Centre and State are inherently cross-empowered under Section 6 of the CGST Act. A separate notification is required only if conditions are imposed; until then, SGST/UTGST officers are deemed proper officers for CGST purposes.
➡️ The Court ruled that the Joint Commissioner, being a higher authority under Section 5(2), is competent to issue SCNs regardless of the monetary threshold. CBIC’s administrative circulars on allocation of cases by value are internal guidelines, not jurisdictional limitations.
➡️ Relying on CBIC Circulars (2017, 2018) and the SC ruling in Armour Security India Ltd., the Court emphasized that both Centre and State may initiate intelligence-based enforcement actions across the value chain, even if a taxpayer is administratively allocated to one authority. Audit and scrutiny, however, must follow the allocation.
➡️ Arguments that (i) only SGST authorities had jurisdiction, (ii) SCNs could not be issued for cases under ₹1 crore, and (iii) combining five financial years in one SCN was impermissible, were all dismissed. The Court held these objections misconceived in light of statutory provisions and circulars.
➡️ While dismissing the writ petitions, the HC clarified that assessees remain free to contest other substantive grounds before the adjudicating authority during SCN proceedings.
✔️ J&K HC – R.K. Ispat Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C ) No. 1074/2024]
