LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 07.04.2025
|
🔥📛 HC restored GST registration cancelled due to closed premises found during inspection as closure was temporary ➡️ The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 by the tax authorities on the ground that the business was not being conducted at the declared place. ➡️ The assessee contended that the business was temporarily closed for 10-15 days during Deepavali holidays as the proprietor was abroad, and they had been regularly paying tax and filing GST returns. ➡️ The court held that the reason provided by the assessee appeared genuine and the tax authorities erred in concluding that the assessee was not carrying on business at the declared place without proper verification. ➡️ The impugned cancellation order was set aside and the GST registration was directed to be restored subject to conditions, including filing of pending returns with applicable interest and fees, and proper scrutiny of Input Tax Credit. ➡️ The writ petition was allowed. ✔️ Madras HC – Golden Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner [W.P. No. 5289 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 Interim relief granted to assessee as challenge to notification issued without GST council recommendation is pending before SC: HC ➡️ The assessee challenged notifications issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which extended the time limits specified under the CGST Act. ➡️ The assessee contended that the subsequent notifications dated 28.12.2023 and 16.01.2024 were not issued on the recommendation of the GST Council as required. ➡️ The impugned order under Section 73(9) was passed beyond the extended period prescribed by the valid notifications. ➡️ A similar issue was pending before the Supreme Court, and the court held that arguable questions were raised regarding the validity of the notifications, and a strong prima facie case was established. ➡️ Interim relief was granted, restraining the respondents from taking coercive actions pursuant to the impugned order pending final disposal, and liberty was granted to the parties to apply upon disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court. ✔️ Bombay HC – Shivam Megastructures (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [WRIT PETITION NO. 92 OF 2025] |
|
🔥📛 Dismisses Revenue’s appeal challenging demand quashed vis-a-vis air-travel agent on cancellation-charges, GDS commission ➡️ The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed the Revenue’s civil appeal against the CESTAT ruling that dropped service tax demand on an ‘Air Travel Agent’ for various charges under ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ (BAS). ➡️ The appeal was dismissed due to an inordinate delay of 187 days in filing it. ➡️ The SC also found no good reason on merits to interfere with the CESTAT ruling. ➡️ This case highlights the importance of timely filing of appeals under Indian tax laws, as delays can lead to dismissal of the appeal. ➡️ The ruling also underscores the need for proper identification of taxable services and consideration received, as emphasized by CESTAT in its decisions. ✔️ SC – Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East vs Trinity Air Travel & Tours Pvt. Ltd. [CIVIL APPEAL Diary No.11172/2025] |
|
🔥📛 Order to be quashed as parallel proceedings by CGST and SGST authorities in relation to same year and same issue are impermissible: HC ➡️ In the financial year 2018-19, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee, leading to adjudication proceedings and the passing of two separate adjudication orders under section 73(9) by both CGST and SGST authorities. ➡️ The assessee requested rectification of the issue, but the request was rejected by the authorities. ➡️ The assessee then filed a petition arguing that parallel proceedings by CGST and SGST authorities for the same period and on the same contentions were impermissible under Indian GST laws. ➡️ The court held that the respondents had indeed initiated parallel proceedings in relation to the same year by putting forth the very same contentions against the assessee, which was not allowed. ➡️ Accordingly, the court quashed the impugned orders and the show cause notice. ✔️ Karnataka HC – Fortune Healthcare Services v. Assistant Commissioner [WRIT PETITION NO. 30042 OF 2024 (T-RES)] |
|
🔥📛 GST cannot be levied on estimated value of byproducts retained by rice millers in addition to conversion charges: HC ➡️ Rice millers provided milling services to the Civil Supplies Corporation for a conversion charge of Rs.15 per quintal and retained byproducts such as husk, broken rice, and bran. ➡️ The revenue department issued assessment orders levying GST not only on the conversion charges but also on the estimated value of the retained byproducts, arguing that the byproducts constituted consideration for the milling services. ➡️ A previous Division Bench ruling had determined that no GST could be levied on the value of byproducts retained by millers. ➡️ The revenue department contended that the absence of a stay from the Supreme Court rendered the High Court judgment inoperative, but this contention was found to be invalid. ➡️ The impugned assessment orders were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed, reaffirming that GST cannot be levied on the value of byproducts retained by millers in this context. ✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – Sri Kodandarama Boiled and Raw Rice Mill v. Assistant Commissioner [WRIT PETITION NO: 3769 and 3795 of 2025]
|
