LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 03.06.2025
🔥📛 GSTAT Member Selection Process assailed; HC grants interim relief, orders ‘no final’ decision
➡️ The Orissa High Court issued notice in a writ petition filed by a candidate who was shortlisted for the post of Judicial Member in the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) and had already attended the personal interaction (PI) stage.
➡️ The petitioner challenged the committee’s action of calling only a few previously-interviewed candidates for a second round of PI, arguing that Rule 3(4) of the 2023 GSTAT Appointment Rules does not allow such selective further interaction.
➡️ The Revenue defended the process, relying on Clause 4 and Rule 19 of the same rules, claiming that the committee has the discretion to conduct further interviews if required for selection.
➡️ The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner and noted that the selection process may have lacked fairness or transparency.
➡️ As an interim measure, the Court allowed the selection process to continue but barred any final decision on appointments until the next hearing on June 20.
✔️ Orissa HC – Pranaya Kishore Harichandan. vs Union of India and Others [W.P.(C). NO. 15220 OF 2025]
🔥📛 AAR: ‘Proceedings’ also encompasses investigation, which may or may not lead to SCN; Rejects application
➡️ The Tamil Nadu AAR ruled that once an investigation is initiated under the CGST/TNGST Act on the same issue raised in an advance ruling application, the application cannot be entertained.
➡️ The applicant had sought clarification on whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) is available for construction, interior purchases, furniture, and equipment used for a rental business, but AAR declined to rule due to an ongoing investigation on the same matter by the DGGI.
➡️ AAR noted that the investigation had already begun before the applicant filed the advance ruling request, making the application inadmissible under Section 98(2) of the GST Act.
➡️ The authority clarified that the term “proceedings” includes not just formal actions like show cause notices but also pre-SCN inquiries and investigations, broadening its scope significantly.
➡️ It concluded that any such investigation is considered a proceeding aimed at protecting government revenue, and therefore, the advance ruling process cannot run parallel to or override ongoing investigations.
✔️ Tamil Nadu AAR – In the matter of Rare SS Properties India Private Limited [18/ARA/2025]
🔥📛 No IGST on services from HO to BOs without cross charging since full ITC would be available to BOs: HC
➡️ The petitioner challenged a demand order for IGST raised by the department, alleging that the Head Office provided services to Branch Offices without cross-charging.
➡️ The petitioner argued that no IGST was payable since no invoices were issued and the Branch Offices were eligible for full Input Tax Credit (ITC).
➡️ CBIC’s Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST clarified that when no invoice is issued and full ITC is available, the value of supply should be deemed as Nil, and internal cost elements like salaries need not be included.
➡️ The precedent set in Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India supported the view that GST demand is unsustainable in such cases of deemed Nil value.
➡️ The court found that the department failed to consider the circular and precedent, set aside the demand order, and remanded the matter back for reconsideration.
✔️ Delhi HC – KEI Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 6919 of 2025]
🔥📛 Credit cannot be denied without considering assessee’s contention and documents; matter to be remanded: HC
➡️ The assessee challenged an order passed by the tax authority regarding a GST demand that did not involve fraud or wrongful ITC claims.
➡️ The assessee argued that they had properly replied to the show cause notice, specifically addressing issues related to inward supplies as per GSTR-2A.
➡️ In their reply, the assessee submitted credit notes and supporting documents to clarify and justify their claims.
➡️ The tax authority, however, did not consider or evaluate these credit notes and documents while passing the order.
➡️ The court held that since the relevant documents and contentions were not properly considered, the impugned order should be set aside.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Company (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [WRIT PETITION NO. 11130 OF 2025 (T-RES)]
