LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 30.12.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC seeks Govt reply in PIL seeking GST cut on Air Purifiers/HEPA filters
➡️ A Public Interest Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court challenges the continued levy of 18% GST on Air Purifiers and HEPA filters (classified under HSN 84213920), seeking a concessional 5% rate applicable to medical devices.
➡️ The Petitioner relies on a Ministry of Health & Family Welfare notification dated February 11, 2020, arguing that Air Purifiers fall within the expanded definition of “medical device” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and therefore should attract GST at 5%, not 18%.
➡️ It is contended that once Air Purifiers are covered as medical devices under the said notification, their continued taxation at 18% is illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable, contrary to the GST rate structure applicable to notified medical devices.
➡️ The Petitioner highlights a December 12, 2025 report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, which recommended that the Government take a sympathetic view by abolishing or reducing GST on Air Purifiers and HEPA filters, considering public health and air quality concerns.
➡️ The Court observed that the issue merits consideration by the GST Council and sought clarity from the Government and Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs on how soon the Council could meet. Revenue clarified that, under existing regulations, Council meetings must be held physically and not via video conferencing, following which the Court directed the Government to file a detailed counter-affidavit within 10 days.
✔️ Delhi HC – Kapil Madan vs UOI & Ors [W.P.(C) 19644/2025]
🔥📛 Karnataka HC grants interim stay to Swiggy on GST notice over delivery services via ECO-platform
➡️ The Karnataka High Court extended interim protection to Swiggy, staying coercive action pursuant to an SCN issued by Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) alleging GST liability on delivery services facilitated through its platform.
➡️ Swiggy argued that as an Electronic Commerce Operator (ECO), it cannot be fastened with tax liability under Section 9(5) of the CGST Act in the absence of a specific notifying entry for delivery services during the disputed period (28 July 2020 to 31 March 2022). The absence of such notification was central to the challenge.
➡️ The Assessee relied on Notification No. 17/2025–CT (Rate), effective prospectively from 22 September 2025, covering “local delivery services” under Section 9(5). It was contended that this notification itself demonstrates that delivery services via ECOs were not taxable in earlier periods, rendering any retrospective levy impermissible.
➡️ Swiggy submitted that delivery partners were already registered and had discharged GST, while Swiggy had complied with Section 52(1) (TCS provisions). The SCN, if sustained, would result in double taxation, violating Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution, and being contrary to the statutory GST framework and GST Council recommendations.
➡️ On jurisdictional grounds, the Assessee challenged the SCN for covering multiple assessment years in a single notice, allegedly contrary to statutory mandate. At the Revenue’s request, the Court has posted the matter for further hearing on 13 January 2026, keeping all issues open.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Swiggy Limited v. Union of India [WP 30556/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Portal-only ‘communication’ insufficient for Section-107 limitation; Physical service date prevails over e-communication
➡️ The Court held that mere uploading of SCNs or adjudication orders on the GST common portal does not amount to effective “communication” for the purpose of triggering limitation under Section 107. Limitation begins only upon actual or legally valid constructive communication strictly in terms of Section 169 of the GST Act.
➡️ To avoid disputes on the starting point of limitation, the Court ruled that where communication is claimed through both electronic and physical modes, the date of physical/offline communication will prevail, unless the contrary is proved by either party. This principle safeguards taxpayers against uncertainty arising from portal-based uploads.
➡️ Interpreting Section 169(1)–(3) of the GST Act read with Sections 4, 12 and 13 of the IT Act, 2000, the Court clarified that the legislature has not created any deeming fiction equating portal uploads with “tendering”, “speed post with acknowledgment due”, “newspaper publication”, or “affixation”. Hence, portal upload alone cannot be presumed as valid service for limitation purposes under Section 107.
➡️ The Court emphasized that GSTN does not provide an electronic trail showing when an assessee actually accessed, opened, downloaded, or viewed an uploaded order. Since there is also no statutory obligation on taxpayers to check the portal daily, no presumption of service can be drawn merely from uploading, and constructive service cannot be assumed.
➡️ In appeal matters under Section 107, the Court concluded that the presumption regarding limitation operates in favour of the assessee, and the burden lies on the Revenue to prove valid and timely communication. The Court also critically remarked on GSTN’s lack of user-centric evolution, urging it to proactively adapt to the needs of India’s business ecosystem.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Bambino Agro Industries Ltd Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [WRIT TAX No. – 2707 of 2025]
🔥📛 DRC-01 recovery unsustainable as refund allowed by appellate order attained finality for same period: HC
➡️ Once a refund order (RFD-06), after excluding any portion admitted as ineligible by the taxpayer, is affirmed on merits by the appellate authority, it attains finality. The department cannot reopen or re-litigate the same refund issue for the same tax period.
➡️ A review order under section 107(2) is only an administrative decision to prefer an appeal and does not have independent adjudicatory force. Such a review, especially if non-reasoned, cannot override or nullify an appellate order already passed.
➡️ Issuance of DRC-01 and summary SCN seeking recovery of a refund already adjudicated and upheld on appeal amounts to multiple proceedings for the same cause of action, which is impermissible in law and contrary to settled principles of certainty and fairness.
➡️ In the absence of any stay, modification, or reversal by a higher forum, subordinate GST authorities are bound by the appellate order. Reopening identical issues after appellate affirmation violates judicial discipline and the department is estopped from taking a contrary stand.
➡️ Recovery proceedings initiated through DRC-01 on issues already concluded by an appellate authority are without jurisdiction. Such actions undermine the appellate framework under GST law and were rightly set aside as unsustainable.
✔️ Orissa HC – Auroglobal Comtrade (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise [W.P.(C) No. 35050 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC set-aside order of retrospective cancellation of GST registration as SCN didn’t contemplate such action
➡️ The cancellation order was invalid as it failed to record any specific reasons for cancelling the GST registration retrospectively, which is a serious consequence affecting past transactions.
➡️ Since the SCN did not contemplate or propose retrospective cancellation, such cancellation could not be lawfully imposed through the final order.
➡️ The cancellation order was unsustainable because it did not deal with or rebut the contentions raised by the assessee in its reply to the SCN.
➡️ Despite the assessee duly intimating the new registered address, no physical inspection was conducted, undermining the allegation of fraud or suppression.
➡️ Even though the appeal was dismissed on limitation, the fundamental procedural defects in the cancellation process warranted setting aside the order and restoring the GST registration.
✔️ Delhi HC – Modi Packers v. Superintendent [W.P.(C) No. 16684 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Conflicting assessment orders for AY 2019-20 on ITC; overlapping demand to be re-adjudicated: HC
➡️ The case involved demand of tax, interest, and penalty for excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed for FY 2019–20, under proceedings not involving fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement.
➡️ The assessee contended that on the very same issue and for the same tax period, a prior show cause notice had already been adjudicated by the State Tax Officer, who dropped the demand through a subsequent assessment order.
➡️ Upon examination of the impugned order passed by the respondent authority and the earlier assessment order, the court found prima facie overlap in demands, indicating that parallel proceedings were initiated for the same cause and period.
➡️ The court emphasized that duplicate or overlapping demands for the same issue and tax period are impermissible, as they violate principles of fairness, certainty, and proper adjudication under GST law.
➡️ In view of the overlapping demands, the matter was remanded back to the respondent authority with directions to pass a fresh order on merits, after duly considering the earlier assessment order that had dropped the demand.
✔️ Madras HC – TVL. Musthafa & Co. v. Deputy State Tax Officer II, Chennai [W.P. No. 15791 of 2025]
🔥📛 No penalty under GST if non-filling of E-way bill was due to technical glitch: HC
➡️ The dispute centered on detention and penalty under section 129(3) of the CGST Act solely due to non-generation of Part-B of the e-way bill, despite the presence of all other valid documents at the time of interception.
➡️ At the time of vehicle interception, the taxpayer had produced all requisite documents, including a valid tax invoice, and the goods physically matched the description in the invoice, indicating no discrepancy or concealment.
➡️ The taxpayer clearly demonstrated that Part-B of the e-way bill could not be generated due to a technical glitch, and there was no deliberate or mala fide intention to evade payment of tax.
➡️ Crucially, none of the authorities recorded any finding establishing an intention to evade tax, which is a key prerequisite for invoking penalty provisions under section 129.
➡️ The Court held that mere technical or procedural lapses, such as non-filling of Part-B due to system issues, without intent to evade tax, do not attract penalty under section 129(3). Accordingly, the detention and penalty orders were quashed.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Agrim Wholesale (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. 6578 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC set-aside order confirming demand as it was in excess of demand proposed in SCN
➡️ The Court reaffirmed that where there is a jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice, the taxpayer is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even if statutory appellate remedies are available.
➡️ An adjudication order must remain strictly within the scope of the SCN. In this case, the proposed demand was ₹1.71 crore, whereas the adjudication confirmed ₹9.42 crore, which was held to be far in excess and without jurisdiction.
➡️ The order was passed without confronting the petitioner with adverse material relied upon by the department. Such non-disclosure deprives the taxpayer of a meaningful opportunity to defend the case.
➡️ Since the petitioner was not granted an effective opportunity to respond to the adverse material, the adjudication suffered from procedural illegality, rendering the order unsustainable.
➡️ The impugned adjudication order was set aside, and the revenue authorities were directed to issue a further notice in continuation of the original SCN, provide due opportunity of hearing, and conclude proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Mi Industries India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [WRIT TAX No. 291 of 2024]
🔥📛 SC issues notice on plea seeking transition and adjustment of accumulated GST Compensation Cess ITC
➡️ The writ petition raised a constitutional question on whether accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST Compensation Cess, lying on stock at the time of abolition of the cess, can be transitioned and adjusted against GST liability. The petitioner argued that denial of such transition leads to loss of vested credit.
➡️ The petitioner invoked Article 32, contending that accumulated Compensation Cess ITC forms part of a vested right and that its non-transition violates principles of equity and constitutional protections, particularly when GST continues to be payable on the same goods.
➡️ The Court did not decide the issue on merits at this stage but held that the matter involves an important question of law. Accordingly, it directed issuance of notice, indicating that the permissibility of transitioning Compensation Cess ITC warrants detailed judicial consideration.
✔️ SC – Sendoz Commercials (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1219 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC dismissed writ petition as assessee was free to avail appellate remedy against order confirming demand of fake ITC
➡️ The dispute centered on whether pre-show cause notice (pre-SCN) consultation is mandatory in cases involving large-scale fraudulent availment or passing on of fake ITC, particularly after amendments to Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules.
➡️ Notification No. 79/2022-Central Tax amended Rule 142(1A) by replacing the word “shall” with “may”, thereby making pre-SCN consultation discretionary rather than mandatory for the department.
➡️ The Court observed that in cases involving systemic and multi-entity ITC fraud, pre-SCN consultation may serve no meaningful purpose, as the allegations are serious, evidence-based, and unlikely to be resolved at the consultation stage.
➡️ The constitutional challenge to the amended notification was not examined, as a similar challenge was already pending before the Supreme Court, and the SCN in the present case was issued after the amendment came into force.
➡️ Given the nature of allegations and availability of an effective statutory appellate remedy, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to pursue appeal proceedings under GST law.
✔️ Delhi HC – Manpar Exim Inc v. Additional Director, DGGI [W.P. (C) No. 18204 of 2025]
🔥📛 Writ challenging GST summons and seizure premature as inquiry not concluded: HC
➡️ The power to issue summons is meant for information-gathering during an inquiry. Such inquiry is deemed “judicial” only for limited statutory purposes and does not amount to initiation of adjudication or prosecution proceedings.
➡️ Issuance of summons—even after a search and seizure—does not by itself establish wrongdoing. The department must subsequently either issue a proper notice on merits or drop the proceedings based on the inquiry outcome.
➡️ Since summons are merely procedural tools for investigation, courts should not ordinarily interfere at this preliminary stage. Writ petitions challenging summons are premature unless there is clear abuse of power.
➡️ The GST law provides statutory safeguards before arrest, including the requirement of “reasons to believe” and communication of grounds of arrest. Mere apprehension of arrest is insufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction.
➡️ The writ petitions seeking quashing of summons, release of seized goods, and protection from arrest were dismissed as lacking merit, with liberty granted to approach the appropriate forum at the correct procedural stage, if adverse action is taken.
✔️ Delhi HC – Md. Aniqul Islam v. Directorate of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence [W.P.(CRL) No. 1710 & 1861 of 2024]
