LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 03 to 06 SEPTEMBER 2025
🔥📛 Punjab & Haryana HC sets final hearing date for GST on hospital’s in-patient supplies
➡️ Alps Hospital and others have challenged GST demands on drugs, consumables, and implants provided to admitted patients, arguing that these are inseparable from healthcare services and not independent taxable supplies.
➡️ The department has raised a demand of approx. ₹6.60 crore (2017–2023), treating such supplies as distinct from healthcare services and therefore liable to GST.
➡️ Petitioners rely on the earlier Fortis Healthcare Ltd. ruling under the erstwhile regime, where the High Court held that supply of medicines and consumables to in-patients forms part of composite healthcare services, not separate sales.
➡️ Petitioners also invoke Sr. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), which exempts healthcare services, to argue that the impugned supplies are squarely covered by the exemption.
➡️ Interim relief earlier restrained Revenue from proceeding with adjudication. With pleadings in all tagged petitions now complete, the Court has fixed November 27, 2025 for final arguments in the batch.
✔️ P&H HC – Alps Hospital Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Central GST Bhawan & anr, [Copy of order is awaited]
🔥📛 Gujarat HC to examine refund rejection to Petronet LNG on Use or Pay Charges; Issues notice
➡️ The petitioner (oil & gas company) argued that “Use or Pay” (UoP) charges levied on customers for failing to lift agreed RLNG quantities are in the nature of liquidated damages for breach of contract, not consideration for any supply.
➡️ Relying on CBIC Circular dated 03.08.2022, the petitioner submitted that such charges compensate for loss suffered and are not exigible to GST, as they do not involve an underlying supply of goods or services.
➡️ Refund claims on GST paid over UoP charges were rejected by both the adjudicating and appellate authorities. The petitioner challenged these orders as vague, perverse, and beyond jurisdiction.
➡️ The petitioner further questioned the validity of the Circular itself, contending that it unlawfully takes a conclusive view on taxability of charges like late fee, cancellation charges, etc., thereby restricting adjudicating authorities from independently examining the facts.
➡️ The Gujarat High Court issued notice to Revenue and admitted the matter for further hearing, keeping open the issues of (a) whether UoP charges qualify as consideration, and (b) whether the CBIC Circular under Section 168 improperly forecloses adjudication.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Petronet LNG Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara and Ors. [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11032 of 2025]
🔥📛 Madras HC grants interim-stay of GST demand against Renault Nissan over expat salary
➡️ The dispute centers on whether remuneration paid to expatriate employees by their Indian employer constitutes “import of services” liable to GST.
➡️ Authorities argue that such payments attract GST, as the services are considered to be imported from foreign group entities.
➡️ Companies (e.g., Toshiba JSW, Renault Nissan) maintain that salary paid to expats for services rendered in the course of employment is outside the scope of GST.
➡️ In the Toshiba JSW case, the Madras High Court granted an interim stay against GST demand, holding that the issue required detailed examination.
➡️ Applying the same reasoning in Renault Nissan’s case, the Court has granted interim stay on GST demand and tagged the matter with Toshiba for joint hearing on October 6, 2025.
✔️ Madras HC – Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt Ltd vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax. [WP Nos. 32836, 32838, 32840, 32844, 32846 and 32848 of 2025]
🔥📛 SC: Dismisses Revenue’s SLP, upholds IGST refund to KC-Overseas-Education for services exported to foreign universities
➡️ The Bombay High Court emphasized that the definition of “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act must be interpreted in entirety and not in a fragmented manner.
➡️ The Court, relying on precedent from the service tax regime, held that KC Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. did not qualify as an “intermediary” since it provided services on its own account to foreign universities.
➡️ The commissions received from foreign universities for facilitating overseas student admissions were deemed as consideration for export of services, and not intermediary services.
➡️ Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate authority’s order and allowed the assessee’s refund claim of IGST paid on such export transactions.
➡️ The Supreme Court, referring to the Vodafone and Blackberry India rulings, dismissed the Revenue’s SLP, thereby upholding the High Court’s interpretation and reinforcing the principle that such commissions constitute export of services.
✔️ SC – Union Of India & Ors Vs Kc Overseas Education Pvt Ltd Nagpur [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 21104 -21105/2025]
🔥📛 GSTAT: With unquantified claims extinguished post-resolution plan approval, closes anti-profiteering case against Puma Realtors
➡️ The GSTAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, closed anti-profiteering proceedings against Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Oreo City) after noting that the company was taken over by M/s One Group Developers Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to an NCLT-approved resolution plan under the IBC, 2016.
➡️ The DGAP investigation could not progress as the Respondent company ceased to exist independently after the takeover, leaving questions on liability for un-passed ITC benefits.
➡️ The Tribunal directed DGAP to seek clarity on two issues:
–> Whether unquantified ITC benefits, not passed to dispersed recipients, fall under IBC when documents for investigation were not submitted before NCLT’s approval.
–> Whether the successful Resolution Applicant can be held liable to pass on profiteered amounts under Section 171.
➡️ The Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue opined, and the Tribunal accepted, that:
–> Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims/dues not included in the plan stand extinguished.
–> Benefits that could not be quantified due to non-submission of records cannot survive post-approval, and the Resolution Applicant cannot be made accountable.
➡️ Drawing from Ghanashyam Mishra and Essar Steel judgments, the Tribunal concluded that unquantified anti-profiteering claims are extinguished under IBC and hence found no basis to proceed further.
✔️ GSTAT Delhi – DGAP Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt Ltd, Oreo City [NAPA/84/PB/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Affiliation and related university fees, educational activities neither “Business” nor “Supply” under GST; Quashes demand
➡️ The Court held that activities of universities are not commercial in nature and therefore cannot be categorized as “supply” or “business” under Sec. 2(17) of the CGST Act. Education is a constitutional obligation, not a commercial venture, as reaffirmed in SC precedents (T.M.A. Pai, P.A. Inamdar, Sai Publication Fund).
➡️ Services provided by universities to students through affiliated colleges—including affiliation, admission, registration, and examination functions—fall squarely within the scope of “education” and are exempt under Entry 66 of Notification 12/2017-CT (Rate).
➡️ Affiliation fees, PG registration fees, admission fees, convocation fees, and allied charges collected by universities are not exigible to GST. The demands raised (running into several crores for FYs 2017–18 to 2023–24) were set aside.
➡️ Circulars 151/07/2021-GST and 234/28/2024-GST, which imposed GST @18% on affiliation/accreditation services, were declared illegal as they went beyond the statutory mandate and could not override exemption notifications or expand the meaning of “supply.”
➡️ The Court ruled that the Tax Research Unit (TRU) lacks power under Sec. 168 of the CGST Act to issue binding clarifications of this nature. Only proper statutory notifications and rules can define the scope of taxability.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Bengaluru North University Vs Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax [WRIT PETITION NO. 4254 OF 2024 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 HC: Quashes Rs. 37 cr demand on Instakart over bunching of SCN/order; Allows fresh FY-wise proceedings
➡️ The Madras High Court quashed both the original and rectification orders demanding ₹37 crores from Instakart Services Pvt Ltd (Ekart Logistics), holding that issuing a single SCN/order covering multiple financial years (July 2017–March 2023) is without jurisdiction, following the precedent in R. Ashaarajaa.
➡️ The Court noted that proceedings under Section 74 require pre-conditions like fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Using Section 74 merely to bypass the limitation period under Section 73 is impermissible.
➡️ The assessee successfully contended that the limitation period for the relevant years under Section 73 had already expired, making the invocation of Section 74 invalid.
➡️ Relying on Axiom Gen Nxt, the assessee argued, and the Court accepted, that natural justice was violated since (i) their detailed submissions were ignored with the order wrongly recording “no reply furnished,” and (ii) service of notices was ineffective.
➡️ While setting aside the consolidated order, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to issue fresh, separate proceedings for each financial year, in compliance with jurisdictional and procedural requirements.
✔️ Madras HC – Instakart Services Private Limited vs The Additional Commissioner [W.P. No. 31551 of 2025]
🔥📛 Refund of IGST on exports cannot be denied for mere typo error in GST return if documents prove zero-rated supply: HC
➡️ The petitioner-exporter inadvertently entered “Zero” IGST in Form GSTR-1 (Table 6A) despite having paid IGST on exports, and wrongly reported IGST in Table 3.1(a) instead of 3.1(b) of GSTR-3B.
➡️ Due to this error, the ICEGATE system reflected Nil IGST refund, even though tax was actually paid on the export invoices.
➡️ It was undisputed that IGST of ₹9,48,549 had been paid on exported goods (zero-rated supplies), making the petitioner entitled to refund under Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 and GGST Rules, 2017.
➡️ The Customs Department could not deny or withhold IGST refund solely on the ground of mismatch between GST returns and Customs data, where actual payment of IGST was proven.
➡️ The Court directed immediate sanction of IGST refund along with statutory interest, calculated from the date of shipping bills until the date of actual refund.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Ruhi Siraj Makda v. Union of India [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2507 of 2023]
🔥📛 Buyer’s ITC can’t be denied if seller’s registration was cancelled subsequent to date of transaction: HC
➡️ The supplier’s GST registration was valid on the date of supply; subsequent cancellation cannot retroactively invalidate the transaction.
➡️ Goods were supported by a valid tax invoice, e-Way bill, and physical movement through a transport vehicle, confirming the transaction was genuine and not merely a paper entry.
➡️ Authorities erred in treating the invoice as issued by a non-registered dealer solely because the supplier’s registration was cancelled after the transaction.
➡️ The appellate authority noted assessee’s grounds but failed to produce any contradictory evidence to justify denial of ITC.
➡️ The impugned orders under section 74 were held unsustainable in law and quashed, reinforcing that ITC cannot be denied when transactions are bona fide and supported by valid documentation at the time of supply.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Kesarwani Traders v. State of UP [WRIT TAX No. 1235 of 2025]
🔥📛 Retrospective registration cancellation for absence of business premises unsustainable as rebutted with reply and photos: HC
➡️ The GST registration was cancelled on the allegation that the assessee was not operating from the declared place of business.
➡️ The assessee contested the allegation by filing a reply to the show cause notice and submitting photographs of the premises to substantiate business presence.
➡️ The order cancelled registration retrospectively without providing reasons or justification for invoking retrospective effect.
➡️ The Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be exercised mechanically; reasons must be explicitly recorded in the order.
➡️ Since the impugned order lacked reasoning and ignored the assessee’s defence, it was set aside, and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration on merits.
✔️ Delhi HC – Pooja Enterprises v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato [W.P.(C) No. 8276 of 2025]
🔥📛 Anticipatory bail plea was premature as no proposal for arrest approval under CGST Act was made yet: HC
➡️ The applicant sought anticipatory bail, alleging that summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act were being misused as a tool for harassment, creating a fear of imminent arrest.
➡️ The department clarified that arrest under the CGST Act requires prior written approval by way of “reason to believe” from the competent authority (Commissioner/Additional Director General, DGGI).
➡️ It was confirmed that no such proposal or approval existed against the applicant at the time of proceedings.
➡️ Arrest under the CGST Act is not automatic upon issuance of summons; it is conditional upon recorded satisfaction and authorization from the competent authority.
➡️ The court held the application for anticipatory bail as premature since there was no present proposal for arrest, and therefore, the relief sought could not be granted.
✔️ Delhi HC – Azad Malik v. DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit [BAIL APPLN. No. 2973 of 2025]
🔥📛 Pre-deposit for appeal valid even if paid using electronic credit ledger: HC
➡️ The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed solely because the mandatory pre-deposit was made through the electronic credit ledger rather than in cash.
➡️ The Gujarat High Court had already ruled that such electronic mode payments are valid, and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.
➡️ Payment of pre-deposit using the electronic credit ledger satisfies the statutory requirement under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act.
➡️ Dismissing the appeal on the ground of mode of payment was held unjustified and contrary to settled legal interpretation.
➡️ The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner’s appeal was restored to be heard on merits.
✔️ Karnataka HC – VK Building Services (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of GST [WRIT PETITION NO. 21409 OF 2025 (T-RES)]
