LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 25.12.2025
🔥📛 Delhi-HC queries Revenue on GSTAT functioning, examines maintainability of writ alleging natural-justice violation
➡️ The Revenue objected to the writ petition on the ground that a statutory appeal lies before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). However, the Assessee questioned the practical availability and functioning of GSTAT, prompting the Court to examine whether an effective alternative remedy actually exists.
➡️ The Assessee contended that the Order-in-Original (OIO) was passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing, amounting to a serious breach of audi alteram partem. Such denial, if established, goes to the root of jurisdiction and can justify writ intervention despite alternate remedies.
➡️ The First Appellate Authority rejected relief primarily on the ground that documents were not produced. The Assessee argued that this approach was mechanical and failed to consider whether reasonable opportunity and procedural fairness were afforded at earlier stages.
➡️ A key grievance was that the Appellate Authority travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice (SCN), which is impermissible in law. Any confirmation of demand or denial of ITC must strictly align with the grounds set out in the SCN.
➡️ The Assessee argued that ITC was denied merely because the supplier’s supplier had a cancelled registration, without examining the Assessee’s own compliance (such as possession of invoices, receipt of goods, and payment of tax). This raises an important legal issue on whether ITC can be denied without establishing the Assessee’s fault.
✔️ Delhi HC – MAHANADI EXPORTTEK PVT LTD V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [W.P.(C) 19358/2025]
🔥📛 Whether MAB-linked additional banking services amount to ‘supply’; Delhi-HC’s interim relief to ICICI Bank
➡️ The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to ICICI Bank Ltd. in a writ petition challenging a GST SCN proposing a demand of ₹216 crore on so-called “additional services” (cheque books, passbooks, free ATM withdrawals) allegedly supplied in consideration of customers maintaining a Minimum Account Balance (MAB). The Court permitted adjudication of the SCN but restrained implementation of any final order.
➡️ The Department contends that upon account opening, the bank agrees to provide additional services in exchange for the customer’s undertaking to maintain MAB, characterising this as “agreeing to do an act” and hence a taxable supply under Section 7 read with Entry 5(e) of Schedule II of the CGST Act.
➡️ The Bank argues, inter alia, that Entry 5(e) is vague if expansively interpreted; “agreeing to do an act” cannot cover routine contractual obligations; the Department’s view would improperly recharacterise ordinary banking contracts as taxable supplies; and the SCN lacks jurisdiction due to alleged invalid appointment of the issuing authority under Notification No. 2/2017–CT and the CBIC corrigendum.
➡️ Additional challenges include that the demand was mechanically raised by relying on service tax-era SCNs without independent GST analysis, and that the Bank is already part of a larger batch of similar matters before the High Court—necessitating intervention to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
➡️ The Court noted that identical issues are pending in other writ petitions involving the same Bank and other banks, where similar interim protection had already been granted. Following judicial consistency, the Court passed an identical interim order in the present case.
✔️ Delhi HC – ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 19167/2025]
🔥📛 Orissa-HC’s interim relief to JSW Steel on Rs.789 cr SCN over ‘Royalty’ based on audit objection
➡️ The Orissa High Court found prima facie merit in the Assessee’s contention that GST authorities cannot determine or re-compute royalty payable under the MMDR Act—a field exclusively administered by mining authorities—thereby raising serious jurisdictional concerns.
➡️ Where royalty has been assessed and levied by the competent State mining authorities and GST has already been discharged under reverse charge on such assessed royalty, GST authorities lack jurisdiction to independently rework royalty figures and raise consequential GST demands.
➡️ Once statutory mining returns (including ore grade and quantity) are accepted by the Indian Bureau of Mines and State mining authorities, GST authorities cannot reopen or reassess those factual determinations for the purpose of alleging short payment of GST.
➡️ The Assessee raised substantial procedural objections—particularly that clubbing multiple financial years into a single SCN is impermissible, and that without any primary demand for additional royalty, GST proceedings themselves are unsustainable.
➡️ The Court noted that the SCN appeared to be issued mechanically, solely on the basis of a CAG audit objection, without independent application of mind. Given the serious jurisdictional issues and pendency of similar matters, the Court granted interim protection by staying all coercive action until the next hearing.
✔️ Orissa-HC – JSW Steel Limited vs UOI & ors [W.P.(C) NO. .35388 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine if work contracts assigned by DJB attracts 12% or 18% GST
➡️ The central question before the Delhi High Court is whether Delhi Jal Board (DJB) qualifies as a “local authority” under Section 2(69) of the CGST Act, 2017, which directly determines whether works contracts executed for DJB attract 12% GST or 18% GST.
➡️ The dispute arises from a Show Cause Notice dated 19 September 2025 issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), demanding an additional 6% GST from contractors on the premise that DJB is not a local authority and hence not eligible for the concessional 12% rate.
➡️ The High Court noted that identical questions of law are already under consideration in earlier writ petitions involving DJB contractors. In those matters, the Court has recognized that the classification of DJB is a pure legal issue requiring authoritative determination to avoid multiplicity and protracted proceedings.
➡️ Applying parity with earlier orders, the Court extended interim relief to the present petitioner by staying further proceedings under the impugned SCN, acknowledging that contractors have already discharged GST at 12%, and that coercive recovery would be premature pending final adjudication.
➡️ While the GST Department asserts that DJB is not a local authority, both the contractors and DJB itself maintain that it is. The Court has directed filing of counter-affidavits and listed the matter for final consideration on 3 February 2026, underscoring the issue’s sector-wide implications for public utility works contracts under GST.
✔️ Delhi HC – SSP Private Limited vs Joint Director Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Delhi Zonal Unit & anr [W.P.(C) 18890/2025]
🔥📛 SC to examine constitutionality of extinguishing accumulated compensation-cess on coal
➡️ The writ petition before the Supreme Court of India challenges the denial of transition and/or utilisation of accumulated GST Compensation Cess ITC, particularly on coal, after the cess was abolished w.e.f. 22 September 2025, despite no express extinguishment of such credit.
➡️ The assessee contends that although Compensation Cess was abolished, its tax incidence has effectively been continued by increasing the GST rate on coal to 18%, without allowing carry forward or utilisation of accumulated cess credit—resulting in an impermissible fiscal outcome.
➡️ It is argued that Compensation Cess is an incremental levy to GST, both traceable to Article 246A of the Constitution, and therefore, upon its abolition, accumulated cess ITC cannot be extinguished and must either be transitioned or permitted to be adjusted against GST liability.
➡️ The assessee asserts that accrued ITC constitutes “property” under Article 300A, which cannot be taken away without authority of law. Denial of utilisation is alleged to cause double taxation on the same stock, as the cess element is embedded in the enhanced GST rate.
➡️ The framework is challenged as hostile and discriminatory under Article 14, disproportionately affecting coal traders within the supply chain. The blockage of substantial credit is also claimed to severely impair working capital and business viability, amounting to an unreasonable restriction on the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court has condoned delay and issued notice to the Revenue, returnable on 25 March 2026.
✔️ SC – Sendoz Commercials Private Limited vs Union of India [Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1219/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Officers must explore alternate service modes if Assessee does not respond to SCN
➡️ The Court held that merely uploading notices on the GST portal does not constitute effective service when the taxpayer does not respond. Service must meaningfully communicate the proceedings to the taxpayer.
➡️ If no response is received through one mode of service, the Proper Officer is legally obligated to explore other prescribed modes under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, especially service by RPAD (Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due).
➡️ Sending repeated reminders through the GST portal, without applying independent judgment or attempting alternate statutory modes, amounts to an empty formality and fails the test of valid service.
➡️ Confirming tax demand without granting a personal hearing—where notices were only portal-based and remained unanswered—violates principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard.
➡️ On these grounds, the Court set aside the assessment order, reaffirming that procedural compliance under GST must be substantive and effective, not merely technical or mechanical.
✔️ Madras HC – Enfive Systems Private Limited Vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes & Anr. [W.P.(MD)No. 36252 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Summary SCN and order in Form DRC-01/07 without reasons violate Section 75
➡️ The Calcutta High Court held that issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) only in summary Form GST DRC-01 and passing an adjudication order merely through summary Form GST DRC-07, without narrating facts or reasons, is legally unsustainable.
➡️ The Court emphasized that Section 75(6) of the CGST Act mandates a reasoned adjudication order. An order lacking reasons violates statutory requirements and cannot stand, especially where civil consequences follow.
➡️ The Court reiterated the settled law that an order without reasons is a nullity, more so when it entails adverse civil or penal consequences. Absence of reasoning deprives the assessee of an effective opportunity to defend.
➡️ Relying on its earlier precedents, the Court held that uploading notices or orders only under the “additional notices and orders” tab on the GST portal does not constitute valid service for quasi-judicial proceedings.
➡️ The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Department to:
–> Issue a detailed SCN supporting the summary DRC-01 within two weeks,
–> Allow the assessee two weeks to respond, and
–> Complete adjudication within two weeks of receiving the reply, strictly in accordance with law.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Duttcon Consultant and Engineers Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Shyambazar Charge & Ors. [WPA/24188/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Non-filing of LUT/Bond prior to export is a curable lapse; Refund denial unjustified
➡️ The Karnataka High Court examined whether non-submission of a Bond/LUT prior to export, as prescribed under Rule 96A (read with Rule 19A) of the CGST Rules, could validly be treated as a fatal defect for rejecting a GST refund claim.
➡️ The Court held that the requirement of furnishing a Bond/LUT prior to export is directory and not mandatory. Non-furnishing or delayed furnishing of such documents is not an incurable defect, particularly when exports have otherwise taken place without payment of tax.
➡️ The Court noted that Paragraph 4 of the Circular explicitly allows condonation of delay and permits ex post facto filing of Bond/LUT based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Revenue’s failure to consider this Circular rendered the refund rejection unsustainable.
➡️ The respondents themselves had permitted the assessee to file the Bond/LUT even after export. In light of this conduct, rejecting the refund solely on the ground of prior non-submission was held to be arbitrary and contrary to settled administrative practice.
➡️ The impugned refund rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The ruling reinforces that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive GST refund rights, especially when exports and compliance can be demonstrated retrospectively.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Prime Perfumery Works Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax [WRIT PETITION NO. 11076 OF 2024 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 HC: SCN reopening refund finalised in appeal on Commissioner’s administrative review-order is unconscionable
➡️ The High Court held that once the issue of refund was conclusively decided by the Appellate Authority in favour of the assessee, the same issue could not be reopened through a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (DSCN) under Section 73. Principles of res judicata and issue estoppel squarely apply to GST adjudication proceedings.
➡️ The Court rejected the Department’s stand that the Commissioner’s administrative review under Section 107(2) overrides a quasi-judicial appellate order. It clarified that quasi-judicial appellate decisions prevail over administrative instructions, and any attempt to nullify an Order-in-Appeal through adjudication is impermissible.
➡️ The Commissioner’s review direction authorising filing of appeal lost its legal force once the appeal was filed and decided. Revival of the same review order through Section 73 proceedings was held to be arbitrary, unwholesome, and beyond jurisdiction.
➡️ The Joint Commissioner, by issuing the DSCN on the same issue already decided in appeal, overstepped jurisdiction and effectively sat in judgment over the Appellate Authority—an action the Court termed unfair and damaging to confidence in GST administration.
➡️ Since the Order-in-Appeal was neither stayed nor reversed by a higher forum, Section 107(16) barred re-agitation of the same issue. The Court exercised its inherent powers to set aside the DSCN and summary SCN, holding them to be in violation of natural justice and statutory discipline.
✔️ Orissa HC – Auroglobal Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Bhubaneswar Commissionerate [W.P.(C) No. 35050 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC directs revenue to refund amount as it can’t refuse to comply with appellate order until it’s set aside or stayed
➡️ An order passed by the Appellate Authority is binding on the Competent Authority unless it is expressly stayed or set aside by a higher forum.
➡️ Mere contemplation or intention to file an appeal against the Appellate Authority’s order does not justify non-compliance or withholding of refund.
➡️ The Competent Authority cannot unilaterally refuse to implement an appellate order on the ground that an appeal may be filed in the future.
➡️ When a refund with interest is ordered by the Appellate Authority, the taxpayer is legally entitled to enforcement of that order through writ jurisdiction if necessary.
➡️ The court reiterated that administrative authorities must act within the framework of law and respect appellate decisions to maintain certainty, fairness, and rule of law under GST.
✔️ Bombay HC – Ma Agro v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax [WRIT PETITION NO. 15764 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Appellate authority to re-hear appeal after payment of pre-deposit, which was dismissed for non-payment: HC
➡️ The petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority solely on the ground of non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit under GST law.
➡️ The petitioner argued that since the demand related to disallowance of Input Tax Credit (ITC) already availed, they believed that no separate pre-deposit was required.
➡️ The Court observed that the Show Cause Notice had clearly quantified the amount proposed to be recovered or the ITC sought to be disallowed, leaving no ambiguity regarding the monetary demand.
➡️ Given that the demand amount was expressly computed and specified, the statutory requirement of making a pre-deposit was applicable, and the petitioner was obliged to comply with it.
➡️ As the petitioner expressed willingness to make the requisite pre-deposit, the Court directed payment by 15 January 2026 and ordered that, upon such payment, the Appellate Authority must rehear the appeal on merits. Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside.
✔️ Delhi HC – VSM Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi North Commissionerate [W.P. (C) No. 18533 of 2025]
