LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 02.04.2025
|
🔥📛 Calcutta HC stays order based on deleted Rule 96(10); Cites lack of authority post omission ➡️ The Calcutta High Court stayed an order related to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging violation of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which had been omitted from the statute. ➡️ The court held that since Rule 96(10) was omitted unconditionally without a saving clause for pending proceedings, all actions from the date of omission must stop, and thus the respondent had no scope to pass any order invoking the rule after its omission. ➡️ The assessee, involved in manufacturing and trading of plastic containers, had availed the benefit of automatic refund of IGST, which was against Rule 96(10) as per the Revenue. The assessee contended that despite the SCN issued during the rule’s validity and their response to it, the order passed after the rule’s omission was ineffective. ➡️ Referring to the Kolhapur Canesugar judgment, the HC distinguished between cases where a statutory provision is substituted (allowing pending actions to continue) and those where it is omitted without a saving clause (terminating all proceedings), and opined that the assessee had made a prima facie case. ➡️ The court stayed the impugned order till the disposal of the writ petition while granting the Revenue liberty to file an affidavit-in-opposition. ✔️ Calcutta HC – Glen Industries Private Limited & anr. Vs The Deputy Director Directorate General of GST Intelligence & ors. [WPA 3254 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 HC: Sets aside order, lets assessee avail Amnesty Scheme u/s 128A ➡️ The Karnataka High Court set aside an order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. ➡️ The court noted that the Revenue did not object to setting aside the order if the Assessee availed the Amnesty Scheme envisaged under Section 128A. ➡️ The Assessee contended that the order was passed without an opportunity of hearing and sought reconsideration to avail benefits under the GST Amnesty Scheme introduced under Section 128A, which expires on March 31, 2025. ➡️ The High Court found merit in the Assessee’s contention regarding the lack of opportunity and remanded the matter to the proper officer for fresh consideration. ➡️ Accordingly, the matter was remanded for reconsideration afresh with a direction to file an application to avail the GST Amnesty Scheme. ✔️ Karnataka HC – ADR Contractors Vs. Office of Deputy Commissioner & Anr. [WRIT PETITION NO.8033 OF 2025 (T-RES)] |
|
🔥📛 HC: Revenue to factually determine ‘warehouse’ qualification as ‘plant’ in terms of Safari Retreats’ verdict ➡️ The Patna High Court (HC) found that the Assistant Commissioner did not properly examine if the warehouse could be classified as a plant under Section 17(5)(d) of the BGST Act, 2017. ➡️ The HC set aside the order requiring the assessee to pay a specified amount and ruled that the assessee was eligible to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) for warehouse construction. ➡️ The HC directed the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the assessee’s documentary evidence, grant a proper hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned order within three months. ➡️ The assessee constructed a warehouse with a brick-and-mortar base, pre-fabricated structure, truss, and iron sheets, and leased it to e-marketing companies for rental income. ➡️ The assessee argued that rental income should be taxed under GST only after availing ITC on construction materials and equipment, while the Revenue contended that the warehouse, being immovable property, was ineligible for ITC under Section 17(5)(d). The HC allowed the assessee’s writ applications. ✔️ Patna HC – BK Warehousing LLP vs State of Bihar [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8482 of 2024] |
|
🔥📛 ITC not to be denied to purchasing dealer on selling dealer’s failure to deposit collected tax: HC ➡️ The assessee challenged the validity of section 16(2)(aa) and section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the ASGST Act. ➡️ The assessee referred to a court decision in WP(C) 2863/2022, decided on 5-8-2024, which held that section 16(2) had to be read down. ➡️ The court decision stated that if a selling dealer failed to deposit tax collected from a purchasing dealer, the department’s remedy was to proceed against the defaulting selling dealer to recover the tax. ➡️ The court decision also held that the purchasing dealer was not to be denied input tax credit (ITC) in such a situation. ➡️ The revenue had no objection to deciding the challenge to section 16(2)(c) in line with the decision in WP(C) 2863/2022. Consequently, section 16(2) had to be read down. ✔️ Gauhati HC – McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. Union of India [WP(C) No. 5725 of 2022] |
|
🔥📛 Order to be quashed as issue was already settled by Division Bench in earlier binding judgment: HC ➡️ An assessee filed a petition seeking to quash orders passed in appeals related to input tax credit under GST law. ➡️ The parties jointly submitted that the issue in the petition was no longer relevant as it had been dealt with by a Division bench in the case of Nivea India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 2786 OF 2021] (Bombay). ➡️ The court held that for the reasons assigned in the order passed by the Division bench, the impugned orders passed in appeals were to be quashed and set aside . ➡️ All contentions and remedies of all parties were to be left open for consideration by the competent authority. ✔️ Bombay HC – Indoco Remedies Ltd v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 789 OF 2024] |
|
🔥📛 Assessee is directed to challenge rectification order if aggrieved by it: HC ➡️ The assessee filed a petition challenging an interest demand order, claiming that Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017, which provides for the waiver of interest and penalty for demands under Section 73 for the period from July 2017 to March 2018, was not considered by the respondent. ➡️ The assessee also had an issue with their appeal being rejected due to limitation, as the authority did not consider the bona-fide reasons for the delay. ➡️ However, it was noted that after the impugned order, the authorities had passed a rectification order under Section 161. ➡️ Therefore, it was decided that the assessee should challenge the rectification order if they are aggrieved by it. ➡️ The writ petition was to be disposed of as a result. ✔️ Madras HC – ABI Agency v. Secretary to the Government [W.P. (MD) No. 1461 of 2025] |
