LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 06.05.2025
|
🔥📛 SC: ‘Betting for stakes’ irrespective of ‘nature of game’ is wagering/gambling, submits ASG ➡️ The ASG argues that Rummy remains a Game of Skill (GoS) even when money is involved. The underlying nature of the game does not change just because stakes are added. The ASG confines the discussion to seven important aspects of gambling. ➡️ The ASG clarifies that a Game of Chance (GoC) is one where no skill is involved and is purely a blind spot. Such GoC is considered gambling at its core. The ASG emphasizes that the distinction between GoS and GoC becomes blurred when stakes are placed on the outcome, as the result becomes unpredictable. ➡️ The ASG points out that some states, like Andhra Pradesh and Nagaland, protect GoS played with stakes from penalty and prosecution. This, according to the ASG, is evidence that such games are considered gambling. The ASG bases his arguments heavily on landmark Supreme Court judgments in RMDC-1, Satyanarayana, and Lakshmanan. ➡️ The ASG criticizes the High Court judgment in Gameskraft for attempting to draw a distinction between GoS and GoC when played with stakes. This distinction, the ASG argues, is not contemplated in either statute or judicial precedents. The ASG contends that three High Court judgments (Madras, Kerala, and Karnataka) are contrary to Supreme Court judgments settled three decades ago. ➡️ The ASG submits that the essence of betting is the unpredictability of the result, regardless of whether the game is skilled or unskilled. The ASG urges the Bench to consider these aspects and declare the law, emphasizing that the ratio in Satyanarayana is applicable to the present dispute. The hearing will continue tomorrow. ✔️ SC – DGGI vs. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.[ SLP(C) No.19366-19369/2023] |
|
🔥📛 Penalty upheld as assessee was part of syndicate involved in fraudulent ITC and failed to rebut specific allegations in reply: HC ➡️ The assessee challenged an order imposing penalties under Sections 74 and 122 of the GST Act, claiming they were not taxable persons and that the allegations against them were vague. ➡️ Evidence showed that the assessee were founders of an entity that made deposits into the account of a firm that availed fraudulent input tax credit (ITC). ➡️ The assessee failed to specifically deny the allegations in their reply to the show cause notice. ➡️ The court held that Sections 74 and 122 can be invoked against persons who are part of a syndicate that aids a taxable person in defrauding revenue. ➡️ The petition was dismissed based on these findings. ✔️ Gujarat HC – Shri Shankar Mundra v. Union of India [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2857 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 Dismissal of appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit did not affect eligibility under Amnesty Scheme: HC ➡️ The assessee paid the entire tax amount due under a determination order dated 08.12.2023 but had their appeal dismissed for not paying the mandatory pre-deposit of 10%. ➡️ The assessee was concerned that the portal showing the appeal as “submitted” would prevent them from availing benefits under Section 128A of the CGST Act. ➡️ The court held that appeal proceedings and the Amnesty Scheme (waiver of interest and penalty) are independent and mutually exclusive; the rejection of the appeal does not affect the right to apply for the Amnesty Scheme. ➡️ The assessee is free to apply for benefits under Section 128A if the entire tax imposed in the determination order has been paid. ➡️ If the assessee encounters technical difficulties in filing Form SPL-02, the 4th respondent is directed to take appropriate measures to rectify any glitches, and the writ petition has been disposed of. ✔️ Kerala HC – Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. v. State of Kerala [WP(C) NO. 9213 OF 2025] |
|
🔥📛 Legal representative not liable for deceased’s tax dues if fresh GST registration obtained in their name: HC ➡️ The father of the petitioner, who had a business registered under the name “M/s. N. Kumar and Company,” passed away on 13-2-2018. The father’s registration was obtained on 17-7-2018, after his death. ➡️ The petitioner applied for a separate registration and received a new certificate on 24-3-2018 under the same business name. The father’s registration was later cancelled on 10-1-2020. ➡️ On 18-7-2022, a summons was issued to the deceased father regarding non-payment of GST. The petitioner responded, stating his father’s death and provided a copy of the death certificate. ➡️ The department passed an order holding the petitioner liable for tax, interest, or penalty on the father’s business, claiming the petitioner continued the business after his father’s death. However, the department did not provide evidence to support this claim. ➡️ The court held that without material evidence showing the petitioner continued his father’s business after obtaining a fresh registration, the department’s order was to be set aside. ✔️ Jharkhand HC – Rishi Shangari v. Union of India [W.P.(T) No. 523 of 2023] |
|
🔥📛 Order to be set aside as demand exceeded amount proposed in SCN violating section 75(7): HC ➡️ In the financial year 2018-19, the assessee received a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, demanding tax, interest, and penalty totaling Rs. 28,15,200. ➡️ The assessee did not file a response to the show cause notice. A reminder was issued with a hearing date and a deadline for filing a reply, but the assessee did not appear or respond. ➡️ Consequently, a demand order was passed for Rs. 59,27,500, which included a penalty of Rs. 2,81,520 and interest of Rs. 28,30,780. This amount exceeded the original demand in the show cause notice. ➡️ The assessee argued that the demand order violated Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, which prohibits the demand order from exceeding the amount specified in the show cause notice. ➡️ The court held that the demand order was contrary to the show cause notice and in violation of Section 75(7) of the CGST Act. Therefore, the impugned demand order was set aside. ✔️ Allahabad HC – S R Construction v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. – 1407 of 2025] |
