LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 29.11.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC directs freight-forwarder to exhaust statutory-remedy in fake-refund case; Directs cooperation with EOW/GST
➡️ A freight-forwarding partnership firm challenged the provisional attachment of its bank accounts, alleging that the attachment was issued by a non-jurisdictional GST officer.
➡️ Authorities alleged that the firm was connected to entities involved in large-scale fraudulent GST refund claims, and that it had benefitted by approx. ₹95 lakh out of a ₹65-crore fraud executed by misusing a GST officer’s login credentials.
➡️ The Delhi High Court expressed shock when the partner admitted that the firm recorded ₹100-crore turnover within a year with only 5 employees, remarking that the firm appeared to be abusing statutory GST benefits.
➡️ Based on Revenue’s affidavit showing that the partner repeatedly ignored summons from both the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and GST authorities, the Court temporarily impleaded the EOW and directed the assessee to reveal all bank account details.
➡️ Since the assessee showed willingness to pursue the statutory remedy under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, the Court refrained from deciding the validity of the attachment, disposed of the writ petition, and directed the assessee to fully cooperate with EOW and GST authorities, giving liberty to the government to return to Court if non-compliance continued.
✔️ Delhi HC – SEARICH FREIGHT FORWARDING PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. V/S GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER WARD 94 DEPARTMENT OF TRADES AND TAXES GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. [W.P.(C) 16014/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC restores registration despite limitation bar, cites COVID-Illness and dispute with CA
➡️ The Delhi High Court restored the assessee’s cancelled GSTIN (originally obtained in July 2017), holding that strict limitation norms should not defeat substantive rights where genuine obstacles prevented compliance.
➡️ The assessee’s failure to file returns and reply to the SCN was found to be rooted in bona fide difficulties — a dispute with the accountant who held exclusive login credentials and subsequent inability to access the GST portal, further aggravated by COVID-related health complications.
➡️ Although the assessee repeatedly sought new login credentials and the department briefly re-enabled portal access, later refusal to restore registration and rejection of the statutory appeal as time-barred was held to be unfair in the given factual context.
➡️ While acknowledging that the SCN should have been replied to and compliance delays were prolonged, the Court held that the peculiar facts justified judicial relief to prevent unjust denial of rights.
➡️ The Court ordered the department to reactivate the GSTIN, provide fresh login credentials, enable portal access for all pending returns, and allow payment of outstanding tax and late fees — with the assessee affirming commitment to immediate compliance.
✔️ Delhi HC – EVES FASHION V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [W.P.(C) 17991/2025]
🔥📛 SC stays section 74 proceedings, finding SCN prima facie unclear on fraud or wilful-misstatement
➡️ The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings, observing that the Show Cause Notice appeared “bereft of material particulars,” containing only figures without disclosing the basis for alleging fraud or wilful evasion.
➡️ The SLP argued that allegations of fraud and wilful misstatement were made without identifying the transactions, modus operandi, or evidence, depriving the assessee of the ability to respond meaningfully.
➡️ The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash the notice, holding that once Section 74 is invoked, the writ court should not examine whether the officer had adequate grounds to allege fraud or wilful misstatement.
➡️ The HC justified the validity of the Section 74 SCN by referring to a 191-page draft notice and findings stemming from a Section 67 search, even though the issued SCN did not incorporate those details.
➡️ Noting the assessee’s grievance that the SCN does not disclose the material relied upon, the SC held that meaningful opportunity to defend requires disclosure of particulars, and therefore issued notice to the Revenue returnable in four weeks.
✔️ SC – GR Infra Projects Limited Ratlam vs State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33594/2025]
🔥📛 Allows extended parsing process at Advocate’s office; Allay concerns, directs completion within 3-days
➡️ The Court allowed the Revenue more time to complete the digital data parsing, but set a strict cut-off date of November 30, with a status report due on December 2 before the next hearing on December 4.
➡️ The Advocate raised apprehensions regarding the integrity and safety of seized data, citing: (i) parsing continuing all day against the Court’s earlier direction of limiting hours, (ii) removal of CCTV camera, (iii) sealing done by a lab rather than the Court Commissioner, and (iv) intimidation by Department officers.
➡️ The Solicitor General submitted that the seal was on the biometric system, and allegations of intimidation were exaggerated; further, biometric access did not imply compromise of confidentiality.
➡️ When the Court asked why copying 3 TB of data was still incomplete, the Revenue admitted the process was ongoing “for a while,” prompting the Court to remark that the so-called best forensic lab was operating too slowly, raising concerns of procedural handling.
➡️ Recognizing the presence of High Court officials in the process, the Court stressed that the exercise must proceed on mutual trust, but simultaneously ordered the Revenue to file an affidavit addressing all apprehensions, and warned that any officer whose conduct raises doubts may be replaced.
✔️ Delhi HC – Puneet Batra V/S UOI & ors [W.P.(C) 11021/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Once SCN is issued u/s 74, court cannot test its correctness or grounds; Dismisses petition
➡️ The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that once a show cause notice is issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act, the writ court will not examine whether the notice was correctly issued or whether the ingredients of fraud or wilful misstatement actually exist.
➡️ The Court noted that no prejudice is caused by requiring the assessee to face the SCN proceedings, as the proper officer must still establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression during adjudication.
➡️ Even if fraud or suppression is ultimately not proved, the adjudicating authority may pass the order under Section 73 instead of Section 74.
➡️ The assessee’s contention that allegations were vague was rejected; the Court found that the SCN contained specific allegations of fraud and wilful suppression.
➡️ On the assessee’s argument that limitation under Section 73 (3-year period) would render the demand time-barred even if the final order is passed under Section 73, the Court held that such issues must be examined by the GST authority during adjudication—not at the writ stage.
✔️ Madhya Pradesh HC – GR Infra Projects Limited vs State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. [WRIT PETITION No. 40749 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: SEZ Officer endorsement u/r 30(4) not a pre-condition for zero-rated services prior to September 2018
➡️ Endorsement of invoices by the SEZ authorised officer is not a statutory requirement for zero-rating of services supplied by a DTA provider to an SEZ unit under Section 16 of the IGST Act, for the relevant period in dispute (July 2017 – March 2018).
➡️ The only basis for raising the tax demand against the assessee was non-submission of invoices duly endorsed by the SEZ Commissionerate under Rule 30(4) of the SEZ Rules, 2006.
➡️ The authorities wrongly applied the amended version of Rule 30(4)—introduced via Notification dated 19-09-2018 and effective from 21-09-2018—to tax periods prior to its enactment.
➡️ The Revenue also relied on a Circular dated 12-09-2019, which was issued after the tax periods in question; the High Court held that both the amended Rule and the Circular are prospective, not retrospective.
➡️ The Karnataka High Court concluded that applying the amended Rule and subsequent Circular to the period July 2017 – March 2018 was legally erroneous, and therefore set aside the demand raised against the assessee.
✔️ Karnataka HC – MK Travels vs The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial [WRIT PETITION NO. 12106 OF 2023 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 HC: Payment made under protest during assessment eligible to be treated as pre-deposit for appeal
➡️ The Karnataka High Court held that payment of tax under protest during Section 74 assessment proceedings satisfies the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) for filing an appeal.
➡️ The Court noted that even where the amount deposited under protest exceeds 10% of the disputed tax, it must still be treated as satisfying the statutory pre-deposit condition.
➡️ The High Court confirmed that the Appellate Authority was wrong in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the protest deposit could not be treated as the mandated pre-deposit.
➡️ The Court emphasized that the nature of “protest” does not diminish the validity of the payment toward pre-deposit; therefore, it must be considered for disposal of the appeal on merits.
➡️ The order rejecting the appeal was set aside, and the Appellate Authority was directed to hear and dispose of the case on merits expeditiously without insisting on any further pre-deposit.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Getronics Solutions India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals II) [WRIT PETITION NO. 11470 OF 2024 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 HC: Rs 1 lakh costs on Assessee for repeatedly missing personal-hearings, as condition to quash assessment
➡️ The Delhi High Court quashed the Order-in-Original demanding ₹97.5 lakhs with interest, but imposed a condition that the assessee must pay ₹1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks.
➡️ Although the assessee failed to attend multiple personal hearings despite due notice, the Court accepted the justification that the assessee—being a senior citizen—was suffering from an acute kidney condition since 2022, warranting leniency.
➡️ The assessee’s role as a sole proprietor holding an LPG dealership with HPCL was examined, with the Court noting no deliberate intent to evade proceedings.
➡️ The dispute involved challenges linked to GST Notification Nos. 9/2023-CT and 56/2023-CT for FY 2019-20, indicating that the matter required adjudication on substantive merits rather than dismissal on procedural default.
➡️ Relying on Sugandha Enterprises (Delhi HC), the Court reiterated that matters involving substantial tax liability should be decided on merits rather than on technical grounds when reasonable cause exists for non-appearance.
✔️ Delhi HC – Ganga Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate [W.P.(C) 16741/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Warns Revenue for citing AI-generated fake judgement in notices; Dismisses SCN challenge rooted in IT-search
➡️ Delhi High Court cautioned Revenue authorities after detecting fake/non-existent judgments cited in the SCN — likely sourced through AI tools — and stressed that while AI may be used for analysis or summaries, all judicial citations must undergo human verification to prevent reliance on hallucinated precedents.
➡️ Presumptions arising from IT search proceedings under Sections 132(4), 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act are rebuttable and meant only for provisional assessment under the IT Act. These presumptions cannot be imported into GST proceedings to draw automatic adverse inferences.
➡️ Documents seized during IT search cannot be treated as evidence per se under the CGST Act; however, GST authorities are legally entitled to use such material as a starting point for independent investigation, subject to verification.
➡️ Based on extensive digital records, statements, audit reports and independent scrutiny of the IT-search material, the Court held that the SCN was not premature nor vague, applying principles from Armour Security to confirm that it disclosed adequate details to enable proper reply.
➡️ The matter distilled into a key question: whether assets/documents seized during an IT search create any presumption under the CGST Act — with the HC reiterating that no such presumption exists, and GST authorities must independently evaluate evidence under GST law.
✔️ Delhi HC – J M Jain Prop. Sh. Jeetmal Choraria v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 16754/2025]
