LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 20.05.2025
🔥📛 HC: Grants interim stay on order alleging Rule 96(10) breach for IGST export refunds
➡️ The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted an interim stay on an order related to alleged violations of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. This rule restricts the refund of IGST paid on exports under certain conditions.
➡️ The assessee has sought relief on two grounds: first, to declare Rule 96(10) as ultra vires Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, and second, to hold that no proceedings can be initiated under Rule 96(10) after its omission.
➡️ The High Court has taken note of the submissions made by the assessee.
➡️ The court has issued a notice to the Revenue Department and directed that no coercive steps be taken against the assessee until the next date of hearing.
➡️ The next hearing in the case is scheduled to take place after six weeks.
✔️ Madhya Pradesh HC – Andritz Hydro Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP No. 15897 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Recovery impermissible where taxpayer intends to appeal before GSTAT; Directs to recredit
➡️ The Calcutta High Court (HC) dealt with a writ petition concerning recovery proceedings where amounts were debited partially from the Electronic Cash Ledger and Electronic Credit Ledger. The HC directed that the debited amounts be recredited to reflect correctly in the ledger for May 2025.
➡️ The assessee challenged an order passed by the proper officer under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority (AA) under Section 107. The AA dismissed the appeal, confirming the demand and penalty levied by the proper officer in Form GST APL-04.
➡️ Due to the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), the assessee deposited an additional pre-deposit amount as required for maintaining the appeal before the AA.
➡️ The assessee intended to file an appeal against the AA’s order but, following CBIC’s guidelines and in accordance with Section 112(8) of the CGST Act read with Section 143 of the Finance (No.2) Act 2024, made an additional mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount.
➡️ After reviewing the electronic liability ledger, the HC clarified that the petitioners’ right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was still valid, despite the Tribunal not being constituted. Instead of seeking a response from the Department, the HC disposed of the matter with a direction to consider the ledger for the tax period from 1st January to 11th January 2025 and recredit the amounts to the respective cash/credit ledger.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Jyoti Tar Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax [WPA 1352 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Single judge order fixing time-line in remand proceedings will not supplant the law on limitation
➡️ The Assessee filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Revenue after one year from the date the High Court (HC) remanded the matter for reconsideration. The HC had previously allowed the Assessee’s first writ petition and set a three-month period for completing the remand proceedings. However, the order was passed after one year instead of the stipulated three months.
➡️ The Assessee challenged the delay in passing the order during the remand proceedings, arguing that it exceeded the three-month period initially set by the HC.
➡️ The HC dismissed the Assessee’s writ petition. It referred to Section 75(3) of the relevant law, which states that any order required to be issued pursuant to a remand must be issued within two years from the date of communication of the order. The HC held that the one-year delay was within the permissible period under this provision.
➡️ The HC rejected the Assessee’s challenge on the grounds of limitation, concluding that the delay did not violate the legal timeframe specified in Section 75(3).
➡️ The HC observed that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was not quashed by the court, eliminating the need to issue a fresh intimation under Section 74(5). It directed the Revenue to provide the Assessee with a fresh opportunity for a personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Eppel Tone Engineers Private Limited vs State of UP and Anr [WRIT TAX No. – 2333 of 2025]
🔥📛 Appeal allowed as SCN was not served under correct tab and portal access was contested by assessee: HC
➡️ The department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the GST portal under the ‘additional notices and orders’ tab instead of the correct ‘notices and orders’ tab.
➡️ A reminder notice was sent to the assessee regarding the SCN, but the assessee did not file a reply.
➡️ The assessee claimed that their accountant could not access the portal due to technical issues, preventing them from filing a reply.
➡️ The court held that the assessee was not diligent in checking the portal and therefore the department could not be held responsible for the error.
➡️ However, considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was allowed to file an appeal.
✔️ Delhi HC – Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer, Avato, Delhi [W.P.(C) No. 5846 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Demand stayed as assessee challenged Section 73(9) notice citing absence of force majeure for extended time limit: HC
➡️ The assessee received a show cause cum demand notice under Section 73 on 30th April 2024 for the tax period from April 2019 to March 2020.
➡️ The assessee argued that there was no force majeure at the time and that the respondents could not rely on Notification Nos. 9/2023 – CT and 56/2023 – CT issued under Section 168A to extend the time for initiating proceedings in April 2024.
➡️ The assessee claimed that the notifications, the show cause notice, and the adjudication order were issued in a colorable exercise of power, and that a valuable right had already accrued in favor of the assessee.
➡️ The assessee requested a stay of operation of the order and the consequential demand.
➡️ The court held that since a jurisdictional issue was raised, the writ petition would be heard, and the impugned demand was stayed pending the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Anmol Stainless (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge [WPA No. 2103 of 2025]
