LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 02.05.2025
|
🔥📛 Bombay HC grants interim-stay to Schlumberger against Rs. 92 crores GST demand vis-a-vis secondment ➡️ The Bombay High Court (HC) has granted interim relief to Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (the Petitioner) in a case challenging a GST demand. ➡️ The GST Department had imposed a demand of Rs. 92 crores (along with interest and penalty) on the Petitioner for secondment services, primarily because the payment was not made using Form DRC-03. ➡️ The Petitioner argued that they had already paid the applicable GST via Form GSTR 3B, which they believe is a valid mode of payment. They further claimed that the demand for additional GST amounts to a double levy. ➡️ The Petitioner also cited Circular No. 210/4/2024 – GST dated June 26, 2024, which states that in cases of imported services where the taxpayer is eligible for full input tax credit, a NIL value can be taken, implying that no additional GST should be payable. ➡️ The High Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner and granted a stay on the recovery of the GST demand, effectively halting the enforcement of the GST Department’s order for the time being. ✔️ [The information contained in the above alert is source based.] |
|
🔥📛 SC issues interim order in far-reaching indirect tax case on time bound adjudication by Revenue ➡️ The Supreme Court (SC) has issued notice in 40 cases where the Revenue Department is challenging a Delhi High Court (HC) judgment that favored taxpayers. The HC had ruled that authorities under the Customs Act, CGST Act, and Finance Act, 1994 are legally obliged to conclude adjudication with due expedition. ➡️ The HC allowed writ petitions filed by several taxpayers facing proceedings under these legislations. It stated that a statute allowing an authority to conclude proceedings within a stipulated period “where it is possible to do so” does not permit keeping matters unresolved for years. ➡️ In the specific cases, the HC observed that the Revenue Department failed to show any insurmountable constraint that could legally impede their power to conclude pending adjudications. ➡️ The HC further noted that frequent scheduling of matters and issuance of numerous notices do not absolve the Revenue Department of their statutory obligation to proceed promptly. ➡️ As an interim order, the SC has directed that if any matter comes up before the Tribunal or any High Court, the hearing may be deferred until the SC takes an appropriate decision in the matter. ✔️ [The information contained in the above alert is source based.] |
|
🔥📛 SC: Quashes IDS refund rejection and allows appeal by electric three-wheeler manufacturer ➡️ An electric three-wheeler manufacturer claimed a refund due to built-up credits from an Inverted Duty Structure. ➡️ The Department sought to reject the refund claim on the grounds of alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit and a mismatch between the address of the assessee’s principal place of business and the address in the rent agreement. ➡️ The assessee argued that the orders rejecting the refund were passed without considering the specific allegations. ➡️ The Patna High Court (HC) dismissed the assessee’s writ petition, suggesting that the assessee should file an appeal before the Tribunal as an alternative remedy. ➡️ The Supreme Court (SC) set aside the Patna HC’s order, but remanded the case back to the HC for a fresh consideration on merits. ✔️ SC – Ganpati Motors vs. The Chief Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 30488/2024] |
|
🔥📛 HC: Tampering of official records a ‘serious misconduct’, seizure ‘invalid’; Quashes demand ➡️ The Patna High Court (HC) examined a case involving the validity of a seizure order issued by an officer of the GST Department. It was found that the officer tampered with/interpolated documents related to the order. ➡️ The HC set aside a demand order based on the inspection, citing the absence of independent witnesses while preparing the inspection report. This is a mandatory requirement under Section 67 of the CGST Act. ➡️ The court pointed out serious deficiencies in the process, such as the order of seizure appearing to have been prepared later to cover up the lack of recording the presence of two independent witnesses in the inspection report. This made the inspection/seizure unsustainable in law. ➡️ There was no endorsement on the inspection report and order of seizure, meaning there was no way to correlate that the order of seizure was prepared on the same date as the inspection report. ➡️ The two persons mentioned as independent witnesses in the order of seizure were not present during the inspection, and their signatures seemed to be an afterthought to cover up the serious lacuna in the inspection process. The HC directed that the officer should be admonished and warned that if she commits such misconduct again, she should face disciplinary proceedings or legal punishment. The writ petition was allowed. ✔️ Patna HC – Sri Sai Food Grain & Iron vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13674 of 2024] |
