LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 03.04.2025 – A2Z TAXCORP LLP

🔥📛 Order quashed   as it was passed against a company that no longer existed post-amalgamation:   HC

➡️ The company   MVIL was merged with the petitioner company according to an order by the   National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 21.07.2023. The GST registration   for MVIL was surrendered on 2-11-2023 and suspended from 10-10-2023.

➡️ Assessment   orders under Section 73(9) of the GST Act were passed against MVIL for the   period 2017 – 18 to 2019 – 20. However, these orders were issued after MVIL   had already merged with the petitioner company and ceased to exist.

➡️ The assessee   did not receive any notice under Section 73 despite providing contact details   while submitting the surrender application. The proper officer is required to   serve notice under Section 73(1) on the person chargeable with tax, but in   this case, the notice was not served on the correct entity.

➡️The Supreme   Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki   India Ltd. (SC) held that issuance of notice to a   non – existent entity was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that   the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon an approved scheme of   amalgamation. The High Court also followed this precedent in this case.

➡️ The assessee   filed an instant petition aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 73(9).   The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders as they were   passed against a non – existent company.

✔️ Allahabad HC   – Max Estates Ltd. v. Union of India [WRIT TAX No. – 701 of 2025]

🔥📛 Order to be   set aside as assessee’s explanation for mismatch in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B was   dismissed without proper reasoning: HC

➡️ In the   financial year 2019 – 2020, a mismatch between GSTR – 1 and GSTR – 3B was   found for an assessee. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee under   Section 73 of the CGST Act.

➡️ The assessee   replied that there was a mistake in entries in GSTR – 1 for an invoice dated   2 – 10 – 2019, which couldn’t be corrected in GSTR – 1. However, corrections   were made when filing GSTR – 3B for the relevant months. The assessee also   pointed out that there was no tax liability as they had sufficient ITC to   cover it.

➡️ The   assessee’s reply was discarded by the officer with just one sentence stating   that it was not convincing and non – explanatory.

➡️ Discarding   the reply with a mere sentence is not sufficient to constitute a speaking   order. The officer should have verified whether the mistake was bonafide and   could have asked for or examined the available records.

➡️ The impugned   order was to be set aside as it did not meet the requirements of a proper   speaking order.

✔️ Kerala HC – Masany   Construction Equipment (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer [WP(C) NO. 33646 OF   2024]

🔥📛 Order to be   set aside as date of personal hearing was fixed before date of filing reply:   HC

➡️ The   respondent-department issued a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 to the   petitioner, setting a deadline of 25.01.2024 for filing a reply.

➡️ The   petitioner submitted a reply on 25.01.2024, but the respondent still issued a   reminder notice on 07.03.2024, fixing a time limit for filing reply as   14.03.2024 and scheduling a personal hearing for 11.03.2024.

➡️ The   petitioner filed a second reply along with a copy of the previous one on   14.03.2024, however, the respondent passed an order against the petitioner on   22.04.2024.

➡️ The writ   petition was filed against the order on the ground that it was passed without   providing any proper opportunity of personal hearing, thus violating the   principles of natural justice.

➡️ The court   held that the date of personal hearing was fixed before the date of filing   reply, which served merely as a statutory formality and achieved no useful   purpose. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was   remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, with the petitioner   required to file their reply along with required documents within the given   time.

✔️ Madras HC – Panvo   Organics (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner [W.P. No. 2862 of 2025]

🔥📛 Refund to be   granted as circular cannot override statutory rules governing IGST refund on   zero-rated exports: HC

➡️ The assessee   exported “activated carbonate” under 9 shipping bills and paid IGST of   Rs.25,84,277/-. This indicates that the goods were exported, which is a   zero-rated supply under GST laws.

➡️ The assessee   sought a refund under Section 16(3) of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of   the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. Section 16(3) allows registered   persons making zero-rated supplies to claim a refund of unutilised input tax   credit without payment of integrated tax. Section 54 of the CGST Act provides   for the refund of tax and outlines the procedure for claiming it.

➡️ The refund   request was rejected by the Respondent Assistant Commissioner citing Circular   No.37/2018 dated 09.10.2018. Circulars are issued by the authorities to   provide guidance on the implementation of GST laws, but they cannot override   the provisions of the Acts and Rules.

➡️ The Gujarat   High Court decision in M/s. Amit Cotton Industries (2019 (7) TMI 472)   established that circulars cannot prevail over Rule 96. This means that the   provisions of Rule 96, which outline the procedure for claiming refunds, take   precedence over any circulars that may contradict them.

➡️ The impugned   order was set aside, and the Respondent was directed to refund Rs.25,84,277/-   with applicable interest within eight weeks. The Writ Petition was allowed,   ensuring that the assessee received the refund as per the provisions of the   GST laws.

✔️ Madras HC – Carbolase   Technologies v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs [W.P (MD) No.19678 of 2020]