LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 19.05.2025
🔥📛 SC dismisses Revenue’s appeal against Gujarat HC judgment allowing pre-deposit payment through ECrL
➡️ The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue Department against a decision of the Gujarat High Court (HC).
➡️ The Gujarat HC had ruled that paying the pre-deposit amount through the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECrL) is a valid and sufficient method of compliance.
➡️ The HC allowed the assessee to use the amount available in the ECrL to pay 10% of the tax in dispute.
➡️ In making this ruling, the HC relied on the Oasis Realty case and a CBIC Circular, which clarified that pre-deposits can be made using the ECrL.
➡️ The order copy for this decision is still awaited.
✔️ SC – UOI vs. Yasho industries [Diary No. 17547/2025]
🔥📛 SC stays cash refund of CVD and SAD claimed post GST enactment
➡️ The Supreme Court (SC) has stayed the cash refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) amounting to approximately Rs 3.28 Crores paid by the assessee between August 2018 and March 2019. This period is after the appointed day of 1st July 2017, when the Goods and Services Tax (GST) came into force.
➡️ Previously, the Telangana High Court had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad. CESTAT had allowed the cash refund of CVD and SAD paid by the assessee for regularizing a default under the advance authorization scheme.
➡️ The refund claim was filed under Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
➡️ The SC has stayed the operation of the judgment, stating that if the order of refund has not yet been acted upon, it shall not be acted upon.
➡️ The SC has issued a returnable notice within eight weeks.
✔️ SC – Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad vs Granules India Limited [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17834/2025]
🔥📛 SC: Dismisses Revenue’s SLP against HC judgment on ‘fusible interlining cloth’ classification
➡️ The Gujarat High Court (HC) set aside an order from the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings (AAAR) regarding the classification of ‘fusible interlining cloth’ under the GST Tariff.
➡️ The HC ruled that the cloth should be classified under Chapters 50 to 55, 58, or 60 of the GST Tariff, which deal with textile fabric coated or covered on both sides with plastics that are not visible to the naked eye or only noticeable due to a color change.
➡️ The HC rejected the classification under Heading 5903, which applies only to fabrics where impregnation, coating, or covering is not visible to the naked eye.
➡️ The Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the HC’s judgment, but the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed it on the grounds of delay and lack of merit.
➡️ The SC noted that the 225-day delay in filing the SLP was not satisfactorily explained and found no merit in the Revenue’s appeal.
✔️ SC – UOI & ors vs Girish Pravinbhai Rathod (Jay Ambey) & anr [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22241/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Laments Revenue’s fixation of personal-hearing before last-date for filing reply: Remands matter to SCN-stage
➡️ The Uttarakhand High Court (HC) in Nainital criticized the Revenue Authorities for requiring a personal hearing (PH) before allowing the submission of a reply. The court emphasized that the provisions of Section 73, 74, and 75 of the relevant Act should be read together and found that the authorities’ approach was contrary to the scheme of the Act.
➡️ The HC compared the authorities’ approach to “putting the cart before the horse,” implying that the submissions during the personal hearing should be based on the reply that has been submitted.
➡️ After receiving a Form DRC – 01 (SCN) for a show-cause notice regarding the demand with interest for the difference in the value of outward supplies declared in GSTR-1 and the value of E-way Bills, the assessee requested an adjournment of the personal hearing date to a later date to gather relevant information for the reply.
➡️ The HC stated that if a statute specifies a particular procedure for a matter, it must be followed as prescribed. The court noted that the law on this matter is well established and not a new issue.
➡️ The HC observed that the order rejecting the application for adjournment did not provide any justifiable reasons. Consequently, the court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the competent authority to proceed from the SCN stage.
✔️ Uttarakhand HC – Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others [WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 123 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Writ to be dismissed with cost as petitioner was part of nexus that availed or facilitated ineligible ITC through coordinated arrangements: HC
➡️ The assessee filed a petition challenging an order that raised a demand for fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
➡️ The assessee claimed that their reply was not considered and no personal hearing was granted before the order was passed.
➡️ However, a review of the assessee’s reply and the director’s statement revealed inconsistencies in their positions.
➡️ It was found that the show cause notice was properly served and personal hearing notices were provided, indicating no arbitrary action by the department.
➡️ The department’s order was upheld as various parties, including the assessee’s firm, had facilitated or availed ITC through arrangements with the main proponent. The petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1 lakh.
✔️ Delhi HC – Mahesh Fabrinox (P.) Ltd v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 6006 of 2025]
🔥📛 No extension of time limit for passing order under Sec. 73(9) in absence of force majeure condition: HC
➡️ The assessee challenged an order passed on 28-08-2024 under section 73 for the tax period from April 2019 to March 2020, arguing that it was beyond the statutory period specified in section 73(10).
➡️ The assessee highlighted that the time to furnish the return was extended to 31-3-2021, and there were no further provisions allowing an order to be passed within this extended period.
➡️ The assessee also pointed out that the respondents invoked section 168A to extend the date for passing the order under section 73(9) up to 31-08-2024, but there was no force majeure justifying this extension.
➡️ The court held that the matter should be adjourned, and the impugned order was to remain stayed until the next hearing date.
➡️ The case revolves around the legality of the order’s timing and the proper application of the relevant sections in the context of the extended periods and the absence of force majeure.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Amar Nath Jaiswal v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [WPA No. 1860 of 2025]
