LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 13.11.2025
🔥📛 SC to examine validity of circulars overriding Sec. 6(2)(b) that bars parallel GST proceedings
➡️ The Supreme Court has granted an interim stay on the Bombay High Court judgment and the impugned CGST order, and has issued notice to the Revenue to examine whether Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act prohibits parallel or duplicate proceedings by Central and State authorities for the same period.
➡️ The assessee argues that the Courts below improperly relied on departmental circulars, which cannot override the clear language of statutory provisions, particularly the bar under Section 6(2)(b) against multiple proceedings for the same subject matter.
➡️ The assessee had filed a writ petition before the High Court asserting that the Central proceedings were invalid, since State GST authorities had already initiated action for AY 2017–18 and 2018–19, invoking the statutory prohibition on dual jurisdiction.
➡️ The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ, holding that the assessee should pursue the statutory appellate remedy, which is better equipped to assess the applicability of the precedent in Armour Security, a case addressing overlaps in jurisdiction.
➡️ The High Court opined that the Appellate Authority is the proper forum to determine whether the principle in Armour Security—that once one authority initiates proceedings the other cannot duplicate them—applies on the facts of the assessee’s case.
✔️ SC – Sree UGCL Projects Ltd. vs Additional Director (Directorate General of GST Intelligence) [PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 30756/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC to ascertain if DJB qualifies as ‘local-authority’, enabling contractors to charge concessional-rate
➡️ The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay on show-cause notices issued to Delhi Jal Board (DJB) contractors demanding a higher GST rate of 18% instead of 12% for works contract services.
➡️ The Court framed the key issue as whether DJB qualifies as a “local authority” under Section 2(69) of the CGST Act, stating that this legal question must be resolved to prevent unnecessary litigation.
➡️ Contractors relied on a GST Policy Wing clarification dated 16-11-2020, which recognizes DJB as a local authority, thereby entitling them to the concessional 12% GST rate.
➡️ The Department argued that DJB is not a local authority, and hence contractors cannot claim the benefit of the reduced GST rate applicable to works provided to local authorities.
➡️ The Court admitted the writ petition for detailed consideration and listed the matter for further hearing on February 3, 2026, continuing the stay meanwhile.
✔️ Delhi HC – Tirupati Cement Products v. Joint Director, DGGI, Delhi Zonal Unit & Anr. [W.P.(C) 16799/2025]
🔥📛 Karnataka HC issues notice on DHL’s refund plea for tax paid under ‘mistake of law’
➡️ DHL Express (India) seeks refund of ₹39.46 crore GST paid on “unbilled shipments,” asserting that the levy violates Articles 265 and 300A since the tax was paid without authority of law and was not passed on to its foreign group entities.
➡️ DHL provides door-to-door courier support in India when requested by foreign affiliates; these pickups/deliveries are performed without separate consideration, creating “unbilled shipments.”
➡️ For July 2017–March 2023, DHL discharged GST believing Section 13(3)(a) (performance-based place of supply) applied, thereby treating the supply as located in India.
➡️ DHL relies on the October 27, 2023 circular clarifying that courier service place of supply follows Section 13(2) (location of the recipient). By emphasizing “continue,” DHL argues the clarification is retrospective, making the recipient’s location (outside India) determinative.
➡️ With the place of supply outside India and no consideration charged to the Indian entity, DHL positions these transactions as exports, claiming all GST paid was under mistake and must be refunded. The High Court has issued notice and fixed the matter for preliminary hearing on 3 December 2025.
✔️ Karnataka HC – DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP 30561/2025]
🔥📛 Recovery of sanctioned refund through Section 74 proceedings valid? Telangana-HC to examine, grants interim-stay
➡️ The Telangana High Court granted interim protection to NATCO Pharmaceuticals Ltd., restraining the department from taking coercive recovery action under Sections 74/74A of the CGST Act for alleged erroneous refunds of approx. ₹206 crore relating to FY 2020–21 to 2024–25.
➡️ NATCO argued that once refund orders issued under Section 54 attain finality, the department cannot reopen or reassess such orders via Section 74 proceedings, without first invoking statutory appeal or review remedies (Sections 107 and 108).
➡️ The Assessee relied on Gujarat HC (Patanjali Foods Ltd.) and Madras HC (Eveready Industries India Ltd.), which held that finalized refund orders cannot be revisited through Section 74 unless proper appellate mechanisms are used.
➡️ NATCO submitted that the dispute over whether licensing/marketing rights constitute “export of services” is essentially a contractual reinterpretation, and even otherwise, the issue is revenue neutral, relying on SC judgment in Mahindra & Mahindra to argue that refund eligibility remains unaffected by characterization.
➡️ Noting that similar issues are already pending before it, the High Court directed that no coercive action be taken against NATCO and tagged the matter with connected petitions, listing it for further hearing on 8 December 2025.
✔️ Telangana HC – NATCO Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. No. 33663 of 2025]
🔥📛 SC to examine ITC denial to purchasing dealer on cancellation of seller’s GST registration
➡️ The Assessee challenged the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on inward supplies solely because the supplier’s GST registration was cancelled suo motu with retrospective effect from the date of registration.
➡️ It was argued before the Supreme Court that since genuine goods were purchased and tax-paid invoices were available, ITC should not be denied merely because the supplier’s registration was later cancelled.
➡️ The Assessee first approached the High Court, which set aside the original order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration due to lack of opportunity for cross-examination.
➡️ After the adjudicating authority reaffirmed the demand, interest, and penalty on remand, the Assessee again approached the High Court. This time, the Court refused relief, stating that the Assessee had an effective alternative remedy available under GST law.
➡️ The Supreme Court issued notice on the Special Leave Petition (SLP), recorded the Assessee’s argument regarding non-denial of ITC, directed service of papers to the State of West Bengal, and listed the matter for hearing on 8 December 2025.
✔️ SC – Roshan Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax & Anr. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31296/2025]
🔥📛 Punjab & Haryana HC restrains coercive action against Expedia over Rs. 511 cr SCN on ‘intermediary’ issue
➡️ The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted interim protection to Expedia Online Travel Services India Pvt. Ltd. against a Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing IGST demand of approx. ₹511.93 crore by classifying the company as an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act.
➡️ The Assessee argued that its exported Software Development and Support Services to overseas group entities (FY 2021-22 to 2023-24) are not intermediary services and that the SCN pre-determined this conclusion without undertaking any legal or factual analysis.
➡️ Expedia contended that the SCN merely repeated findings from earlier refund rejection orders and prior SCNs—both already under challenge before the same Court—indicating mechanical issuance and violation of principles of natural justice.
➡️ Recognizing the Assessee’s arguments, the Court granted the Revenue additional time to file a detailed reply, without allowing coercive steps in the interim.
➡️ The Court ordered that the present petition be heard together with the previously filed petitions involving similar issues, scheduling the combined hearing for 26 November 2025.
✔️ Punjab HC – Expedia Online Travel Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner, CGST, Gurugram [CWP-32883-2025]
🔥📛 SSC: Grants anticipatory bail to CA accused in Rs.560 cr GST evasion racket involving multiple firms
➡️ The Court reiterated the settled principle that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, drawing from precedents such as Sanjay Chandra, Bhagirath Singh, and Balchand.
➡️ The Court observed that if an accused is otherwise eligible for regular bail upon arrest, there is no justification to deny anticipatory bail, provided cooperation and availability for investigation are assured.
➡️ The applicant successfully argued that merely being the Chartered Accountant for multiple firms accused of large-scale GST evasion (₹560 crore) does not, by itself, create tax liability or criminal culpability under Section 132 of the CGST Act, since liability rests with the firms and responsible persons.
➡️ The Court emphasized that denial of bail would amount to pre-trial punishment, especially when the accused expresses willingness to comply with conditions and is not a flight risk.
➡️ Considering the nature of allegations, the statutory punishment, and the applicant’s professional standing and cooperation, the Sessions Court, Jamnagar, granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions to ensure presence and non-interference.
✔️ Sessions Court, Jamnagar – Alkesh Harilal Pendhadiya Vs. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.: 1557/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Payments during inspection not deemed voluntary; Refund for lack of supporting documents not deniable
➡️ The High Court held that refund applications in Form RFD-01, once filed in the correct format and accompanied by essential documents, cannot be rejected through deficiency memos merely because certain additional “supporting documents” are not attached.
➡️ The Court found that payments totaling ₹3.11 crore, made during a period of continuous inspections and summons, cannot be treated as voluntary deposits under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act.
➡️ Relying on the Supreme Court’s Radhika Agarwal decision and High Court precedents (Bhumi Associate, Vallabh Textiles, Bundl Technologies, Kesar Color Chem, J. Ramesh Chand), the Court reaffirmed that any payment extracted through threat, pressure, or coercion is refundable.
➡️ Upon examining the statutory scheme, the Court held that the GST Act provides no legal bar on claiming refund of amounts wrongly classified as “voluntary” payments during search/inspection, especially when made to avoid adverse consequences.
➡️ The Court concluded that the deficiency memos were legally untenable, directed the department to process the refund, and allowed the writ petition in favour of the assessee.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Gunnam Infra Projects Private Limited vs UOI [WRIT PETITION No. 17779 OF 2025 (T – RES)]
