LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 14.04.2025
|
🔥📛 HC: Jammu & Kashmir Bank gets interim stay on GST recovery ➡️ The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted an interim stay on the operation of GST recovery amounting to over Rs. 8000 crores, inclusive of interest and an equivalent penalty, against the Jammu and Kashmir Bank (J&K Bank). ➡️ This interim stay was granted after the J&K Bank filed a writ petition in response to the GST recovery demand. ➡️ The writ petition filed by the bank raised certain issues that need to be adjudicated by the court. ➡️ The High Court has listed the case for further hearing on May 07, 2025. ➡️ The interim stay is significant in the context of India’s GST laws, as it highlights the legal complexities and disputes that can arise in the implementation and enforcement of GST regulations. ✔️ Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC – Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No. 763/2025]
|
|
🔥📛 HC: Physical-delivery not mandatory for ITC, can be claimed upon ‘deemed-receipt’: Distinguishes E-Com Gill ➡️ The Patna High Court ruled that physical delivery of goods is not required to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act if goods are directly delivered to end customers as per the dealer’s instructions. This is a significant change from older laws like the Central Excise Act. ➡️ The court clarified that under the CGST Act, ITC can be claimed based on deemed receipt, even if goods are physically received later or at a different location. The assessee had directed suppliers to ship goods directly to customers to reduce logistical redundancy and maintained that taxes were duly paid. ➡️ Authorities had rejected the ITC claim solely due to the absence of physical delivery to the assessee, and the appellate remedy under Section 107 failed, leading to the present writ petition. The court distinguished its earlier judgment in Aastha Enterprises, noting that the petitioner provided documentary evidence such as tax invoices, e-way bills, payment proofs, and correspondence reflecting genuine transactions. ➡️ The court criticized the Revenue’s narrow interpretation of “receipt” under Section 16(2)(b), emphasizing that such an interpretation could stifle legitimate trade models. It relied on the Explanation to Section 16(2)(b) and CBIC Circular No. 241/35/2024-GST dated 31.12.2024, which allows ITC in “bill-to-ship-to” models. ➡️ The court expanded the interpretation of “receipt” to include actual receipt in cases involving transfer of title in goods and reaffirmed that once tax is paid and credit conditions are met, ITC cannot be disallowed based on technicalities. ✔️ Patna HC – Sane Retails Private Limited vs The State of Bihar & Ors [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 470 of 2024]
|
|
🔥📛 Scheduling personal hearing before reply submission deadline violates Sec. 75(4): HC ➡️ The revenue department issued a demand order under Section 73 of the CGST/BGST Act without providing a proper personal hearing. ➡️ The date for the personal hearing was set before the deadline for submitting a reply to the show cause notice, which is a procedural step. ➡️ This scheduling violated Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, which mandates that a personal hearing should only be scheduled after considering the reply to the show cause notice and only if an adverse decision is contemplated. ➡️ The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing to ensure compliance with the procedural requirements. ➡️ The writ petition challenging the improper procedure was allowed, highlighting the importance of following the correct legal process under GST law. ✔️ Patna HC – S.P. Singla Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15748 of 2024]
|
|
🔥📛 HC stayed final order till disposal of writ petition due to proceedings initiated under Rule 96(10) before its omission with no saving clause ➡️ The assessee received an automatic refund of IGST amounting to Rs. 1.95 crores, which was considered to be in contravention of Rule 96(10) of the GST Rules. ➡️ A show cause notice was issued to the assessee alleging the violation of Rule 96(10) and demanding recovery of the refunded amount under Section 74 of the GST Act. ➡️ The assessee responded to the notice, but before the final order was passed, Rule 96(10) was omitted on 8th October 2024. ➡️ The impugned order confirming the demand along with interest was passed on 30th January 2025, after the omission of Rule 96(10), which did not have a saving clause for pending proceedings. ➡️ The court held that since the rule was omitted without any saving clause, the respondents had no scope to pass the impugned order, and it was to be stayed until the disposal of the writ petition. ✔️ Calcutta HC – Glen Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Director Directorate General of GST Intelligence [WPA 3254 of 2025]
|
