LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 01.05.2025
|
🔥📛 HC: Absent saving clause, all proceedings/orders initiated for Rule 96(10) violation terminate post-omission ➡️ The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the Revenue’s argument that Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was omitted prospectively, thereby keeping proceedings initiated before the omission valid. The Court held that since the rule was omitted unconditionally without a saving clause, all actions from the date of omission must stop. ➡️ The Court set aside an order confirming the recovery of an erroneous IGST refund claimed by the assessee, stating that no order could be passed invoking Rule 96(10) after its omission on 8th October, 2024. ➡️ The assessee, who manufactures gold bars and jewellery, relied on precedents like Kolhapur Canesugar Works, Aeroflex Industries, and Saru Silver Alloys, arguing that when a rule is omitted, it should be treated as if it never existed, and proceedings initiated through SCN cannot continue after its omission. ➡️ The High Court concurred with the assessee, referring to the Kolhapur Canesugar precedent which clarified the difference between the omission and substitution of a rule. The Court emphasized the importance of a saving clause when a rule is omitted and a new provision dealing with the same issue is introduced. ➡️ In the assessee’s favour, the Court inferred that without a saving clause, the legislature intended for pending proceedings to not continue, but fresh proceedings for the same purpose could be initiated under the new provision. ✔️ Uttarakhand HC – Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers vs UOI & anr [Writ Petition (MB) No. 103 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 SEZ units are entitled to claim refund of GST paid on zero-rated supplies subject to supplier disclaimers confirming they haven’t claimed refund of same tax: HC ➡️ SEZ units can claim input tax credit for GST paid by suppliers on zero-rated supplies. ➡️ SEZ units are entitled to a refund of this tax if they provide disclaimers from suppliers confirming the suppliers haven’t claimed the same refund. ➡️ Under Section 7 of the SEZ Act, 2005, goods and services procured by SEZ units from the Domestic Tariff Area are exempt from taxes. ➡️ Although refund mechanisms are prescribed for suppliers under the IGST Act and CGST Rules, SEZ units can still claim a refund if they have borne the tax incidence. ➡️ The impugned orders have been set aside, and the matter has been remanded to pass fresh orders allowing the refund with interest. ✔️ Madras HC – Urjita Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise [W.P. Nos. 26164 and 26166 of 2021] |
|
🔥📛 Order to be set aside where appeal was dismissed for lack of authorization despite documents being submitted to respondent’s office: HC ➡️ The assessee’s appeal was dismissed because they did not produce documents to prove the person signing the appeal memo was an authorised signatory. The respondent authority also claimed that all evidence submitted by the assessee was in photocopy form and not self-certified. ➡️ The assessee argued that they had submitted the required documents, including a scanned copy of the Power of Attorney (POA), to the respondent’s office in person, and this fact was recorded via email. ➡️ The court held that the assessee had provided proper material to show the signatory was authorised. The respondent’s rejection of the appeal without considering the POA submission was improper. ➡️ The court noted that if the respondent had any further objections, they should have given the assessee notice. Denying this opportunity violated principles of natural justice and fair play. ➡️ The court also pointed out that the issue of the documents not being self-certified was a curable defect. The respondent should have given the assessee a chance to submit self-certified copies before rejecting the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside. ✔️ Bombay HC – Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 1021 OF 2025] |
|
🔥📛 ITC refund cannot be denied due to absence of service details in registration certificate: HC ➡️ The petitioner initially registered for supplying goods but later amended their registration to include services, specifically engineering services for metro projects, which are zero-rated supplies. ➡️ The petitioner paid IGST on these zero-rated services and claimed a refund of the unutilized input tax credit. ➡️ Both the original and appellate authorities denied the refund claim, arguing that the petitioner’s registration was only for goods, not services. ➡️ The court held that under the IGST and CGST Acts, a registered person can claim a refund for zero-rated supplies, regardless of whether the registration certificate specifies the type of supply. ➡️ The court concluded that the petitioner, being a registered person, is entitled to the refund of the input tax credit paid on the export of services, and the non-mention of services in the registration certificate does not preclude them from claiming the refund. ✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – Alstom Transport India Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals, Guntur [WRIT PETITION NOS. 21164 & 21179 of 2021] |
