LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 16.06.2025
🔥📛 HC: Dismisses writ challenging GST Council decision imposing GST on Superior Kerosene Oil
➡️ The Calcutta High Court declined to interfere with the 37th GST Council’s decision regarding the imposition of GST on Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) supplied under the Public Distribution System (PDS).
➡️ A writ petition had challenged the levy of GST on SKO meant for PDS, but the court dismissed it after considering the matter.
➡️ The Court noted that SKO for PDS currently attracts a concessional GST rate of 5%, whereas it would otherwise fall under the 18% rate slab.
➡️ An expert committee had assessed that the GST imposition has a very minimal effect on the retail price of SKO per litre.
➡️ Taking into account the expert opinion and minimal pricing impact, the Court stated it would not interfere with the GST Council’s order and thus dismissed the petition.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Kishor Kumar Mondol vs UOI & ors [WPA (P) 86 of 2021 CAN 1 of 2022]
🔥📛 Pre-deposit requirement for appeal cannot be waived in case of fraudulent ITC availment and goods-less invoices: HC
➡️ The petitioner filed an appeal against orders involving serious allegations under GST, including fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) claims and supply of goods without proper invoices.
➡️ While filing the appeal, the petitioner requested a waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
➡️ The case was examined under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, which governs appeals and conditions related to pre-deposit.
➡️ The court held that in cases involving fraud or willful misstatement—such as fraudulent ITC and under-invoicing—the statutory pre-deposit requirement is mandatory.
➡️ Therefore, the request for waiver of pre-deposit was rejected, reinforcing that such relief is not available where serious allegations of fraud are involved.
✔️ Delhi HC – Rohan Aggarwal v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North [W.P. (C) No. 8045 of 2025]
🔥📛 Review petition to be dismissed as digitally signed cancellation order clearly displayed officer’s name and designation: HC
➡️ The assessee had applied for cancellation of GST registration, but nearly a year later, a show cause notice was issued to suspend the registration, followed by a cancellation order.
➡️ The assessee challenged this through a writ petition, where the main issue addressed by the court was whether the delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 could be condoned.
➡️ A review petition was later filed by the assessee claiming that the writ also raised other grounds, including that the cancellation order was not signed by the proper officer.
➡️ The court examined this and found that the order clearly mentioned the officer’s name, designation, and ward number, indicating authenticity.
➡️ The court held that there was no apparent error on record or merit in the claim, and hence dismissed the review petition.
✔️ Delhi HC – Aditya Madaan v. Commissioner CGST GST Commissionerate Delhi [W.P. (C) No. 5650 of 2024]
🔥📛 HC directs assessee to present Form DRC-03A for treating investigation deposit as pre-deposit for appeal
➡️ The assessee was accused of wrongly availing input tax credit, and an order was passed against them by the Adjudicating Authority.
➡️ The assessee intended to file an appeal and claimed that they had already deposited Rs. 27.4 lakh with the GST department during the investigation.
➡️ It was argued that this prior deposit should be treated as the required pre-deposit for filing the appeal.
➡️ The GST department introduced Form DRC-03A to allow taxpayers to claim credit for such earlier deposits at the time of filing an appeal.
➡️ To utilize this, the assessee must present Form DRC-03A to the Adjudicating Authority, who must confirm the deposit, after which it can be used as the pre-deposit for the appeal process.
✔️ Delhi HC – AB Players Exports (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West [W.P.(C) No. 6683 of 2025]
🔥📛 Writ petition against fraudulent ITC claim not maintainable as appellate remedy available: HC
➡️ The assessee challenged a GST demand order for 2017–18 and 2018–19, arguing that no ITC was availed in its Delhi unit during the relevant period.
➡️ The department alleged fraudulent ITC availment based on mismatches between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B returns, involving transactions with a party named Fortune Graphics.
➡️ The impugned order was a detailed summary order outlining the mechanism used by various entities, including the assessee, to avail ITC without actual movement of goods.
➡️ The court held that since the matter involved allegations of fraud and required factual examination of documents and returns, it could not be resolved through writ jurisdiction.
➡️ The petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, as writ jurisdiction is not appropriate where detailed factual scrutiny and evidence evaluation are necessary.
✔️ Delhi HC – VAB Apparel LLP v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication (DGGSTI) [W.P. (C) No. 7195 of 2025]
🔥📛 Department is directed to adopt Standard Operating Procedure for communicating personal hearing notice to assessee in writ petition: HC
➡️ The High Court directed the Respondent Department to submit details on how the personal hearing notice was served to the Petitioner in a writ petition related to procedural lapses.
➡️ The Court emphasized that cases involving procedural issues like non-communication of hearing notices should be resolved on the very first hearing date if departmental counsels are properly instructed.
➡️ A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was submitted, outlining steps for advance service of writ petitions and communication protocols between the CGST Department and the Court registry.
➡️ The SOP also included internal instructions for legal handling of court matters, aimed at improving coordination and efficiency in litigation.
➡️ The Court directed the Registry (Listing and Filing) to follow these SOP communications to streamline assignment of fresh matters to the appropriate departmental counsels.
✔️ Delhi HC – Raj International v. Additional Commissioner CGST, Delhi West [W.P. (C) No. 4096 of 2025]
🔥📛 Petitioner failing to appeal against order can’t challenge bank attachment on ground that DRC-07 was not issued before order: HC
➡️ The petitioner challenged a provisional attachment order but did not appeal against the related Order-in-Original.
➡️ It was argued that the DRC-07 form, which formally communicates the tax demand, was issued after the Order-in-Original, making the process defective.
➡️ The petitioner claimed that even if the Order-in-Original wasn’t directly challenged, the resulting bank attachment should be invalid due to this procedural flaw.
➡️ The High Court held that without challenging the Order-in-Original, no ground existed to interfere with the provisional attachment.
➡️ The writ petition was filed beyond the limitation period for appeal, and the Court refused to bypass the statutory timeline for grievance redressal.
✔️ Telangana HC – Sri Bhagavathi Granites Industries v. Superintendent of Central Tax [WRIT PETITION No. 25839 of 2024]
