LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 06.06.2025
🔥📛 Bombay HC grants interim relief to Bombay Dyeing; Directs de-freezing 8 bank-accounts
➡️ The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to a petitioner who challenged a tax demand order issued after an audit, despite the availability of an appellate remedy.
➡️ The Court took up the petition due to the hardship faced by the petitioner, as their bank accounts had been frozen by the tax department.
➡️ The petitioner agreed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount from their Electronic Credit Ledger (ECrL).
➡️ The Court ordered that upon intimation of this payment to the tax department, the demand order would be stayed until June 16, 2025.
➡️ It also directed that the petitioner’s eight frozen bank accounts be defreezed, and a formal notice was issued with the next hearing scheduled for June 16.
✔️ Bombay HC – The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 16066 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Grants time for deciding representation on GST rate-rejig for government contracts, stays recovery
➡️ The Calcutta High Court granted interim relief to a works contract service provider involved in highway rectification and reconstruction projects, ordering that no coercive action be taken against them until the end of July 2025.
➡️ The petitioner is disputing a recovery notice from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Enforcement (DRI) related to GST rate changes from 12% to 18% on government contracts.
➡️ The petitioner had already submitted several representations requesting reimbursement of the GST differential before the DRI issued the recovery notice.
➡️ The Court directed the petitioner to submit their representation regarding the GST reimbursement formally to the relevant authorities.
➡️ A timeline was laid down by the High Court for both the GST Department and the Public Works (Roads) Directorate to consider and decide on the petitioner’s representation.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Rana Engineering Co. India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works (Roads) Directorate [WPA 8923 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: No provision under GST for reserving judgment and delivering the same later
➡️ The Allahabad High Court quashed an adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), noting it was issued after the scheduled date without informing the assessee or providing a fresh opportunity for hearing.
➡️ A show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the GST Act was issued alleging fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims, to which the assessee submitted a detailed reply with supporting documents like invoices, bank statements, and GSTR-2A.
➡️ Despite the reply, an order was passed demanding tax and penalty from the assessee.
➡️ On appeal, although a hearing was fixed for September 18, 2024, the order was passed later on September 25, 2024 without supplying crucial documents like the survey report or giving a further chance to be heard.
➡️ The High Court, relying on the precedent in Wonder Enterprises, found this to be a breach of natural justice, allowed the writ petition, and remanded the matter back to the Revenue for fresh adjudication.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Sun Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. – 2285 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Dismisses Assessee’s writ challenging cancellation of registration citing alternative remedy
➡️ The Delhi High Court dismissed the assessee’s writ petition against the cancellation of their GST registration, stating that the order is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
➡️ The assessee’s claim that they applied for cancellation before receiving a notice from the Anti-Evasion Commissionerate was rejected by the Court.
➡️ The Court noted that the Anti-Evasion Commissionerate’s letter was dated March 7, 2025, and the assessee applied for cancellation only on March 11, 2025.
➡️ It was observed that the assessee likely became aware of a physical inspection and attempted to preempt consequences by applying for cancellation afterwards.
➡️ The High Court granted the assessee time until July 10, 2025, to file an appeal against the registration cancellation.
✔️ Delhi HC – Asian Traders . Vs. Superintendent, Range -III, CGST & ors. [W.P.(C) 6841/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Directs Lucknow Commissionerate to urgently investigate misuse of taxpayer’ PAN for obtaining registration
➡️ The Delhi High Court dealt with a writ petition involving the misuse of a PAN to fraudulently obtain a GST registration with the principal place of business shown as Lucknow.
➡️ The Court observed that the misuse of the PAN is a serious issue and directed the authorities to act on it urgently.
➡️ It clarified that the cause of action arises in Delhi, as the assessee (taxpayer) is a resident of Delhi and any GST demands would be raised there.
➡️ Despite the jurisdictional overlap, the Court assigned responsibility to the Lucknow GST Commissionerate to investigate and take appropriate action.
➡️ The Lucknow Commissionerate has been given 45 days to look into the matter, make a decision, and pass a formal order.
✔️ Delhi HC – Amit Garg vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & ors [W.P.(C) 5400/2025]
🔥📛 ITC rightly denied where supplier’s registration was cancelled and tax not deposited: HC
➡️ The assessee claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the purchase of filter paper used for soil testing from a registered supplier during the financial year 2017–18, with all payments made via RTGS and goods transported privately.
➡️ A show-cause notice was issued, and the assessee argued that the supplier was registered at the time of the transaction and the purchase was genuine, even though the supplier’s registration was later cancelled.
➡️ The tax authorities found that the supplier had not deposited the GST charged on the transaction, and the assessee failed to provide evidence proving that the tax was actually paid to the government.
➡️ As per Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, ITC can only be claimed if the supplier has paid the tax to the government, and this condition was not fulfilled in the present case.
➡️ The court upheld the findings of the tax authorities, stating there was no reason to interfere, and confirmed that the denial of ITC was justified due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Trendships Online Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes [WRIT TAX No. 501 of 2023]
🔥📛 Second SCN valid as it covered wider ITC fraud network; writ not maintainable against appealable order: HC
➡️ The assessee challenged a demand order related to wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the ground that the same transaction had already been addressed in a prior show cause notice (SCN) and appeal.
➡️ In the first round, the SCN and order were limited to dealings between the assessee and M/s. Radhey Enterprises, resulting in a confirmed demand of Rs. 16.29 lakhs, which was later overturned in appeal.
➡️ The second SCN and resulting order involved a broader investigation into a large network of entities allegedly involved in ITC fraud exceeding Rs. 1,000 crores, and was not limited to the same transaction as before.
➡️ The court held that the second case was substantially different in scope and nature, and thus could not be equated with the earlier proceedings.
➡️ Since the impugned order in the second round is appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act, the assessee must first exhaust the appellate remedy instead of approaching the High Court directly through a writ petition; the previous pre-deposit should be adjusted towards the new appeal.
✔️ Delhi HC – Preeti Khanna v. Additional Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax [W.P.(C) No. 7044 OF 2025]
