LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 06.08.2025
🔥📛 HC: No refund can be granted unless cancelled GST registration is restored
➡️ The Court held that no IGST refund can be granted when the GST registration of the petitioner had been cancelled retrospectively from 2018. Refund eligibility is contingent upon having an active and valid GST registration.
➡️ The petitioner failed to disclose that its registration was cancelled in 2023 with retrospective effect. The Court viewed this omission as a deliberate concealment of crucial information relevant to the refund claim.
➡️ The assessee did not appear for the personal hearing during the registration cancellation process. This non-compliance undermined the credibility of the refund claim and contributed to the dismissal.
➡️ The Court noted that a prior writ petition related to the same matter had been dismissed as withdrawn, raising doubts about the petitioner’s bona fides and intentions as a legitimate exporter.
➡️ In view of the concealment and procedural lapses, the Court dismissed the writ petition with costs of ₹25,000, reinforcing that refund claims must be pursued transparently and in compliance with GST law.
✔️ Delhi HC – Shree Radhe Vallabh Traders vs Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate, New Delhi [W.P.(C) 6768/2023]
🔥📛 Cess on coal for captive power used in zero-rated exports eligible for refund : HC
➡️ The petitioner exported goods (zero-rated supply) with payment of IGST but without payment of compensation cess. Despite not charging cess on the output, the cess paid on coal used for captive power generation in the manufacturing process was claimed as unutilized ITC.
➡️ Tax authorities denied the refund, reasoning that since the zero-rated supplies were made with IGST payment and not compensation cess, refund of the accumulated cess credit was inadmissible.
➡️ The Gujarat High Court, in Patson Papers Pvt. Ltd., held that even where zero-rated goods are exported with payment of IGST but without compensation cess, the refund of unutilized ITC of compensation cess on inputs (like coal) is allowable.
➡️ The High Court found the petitioner’s case factually identical to Patson Papers Pvt. Ltd., confirming that the legal principles established therein were squarely applicable, thus entitling the petitioner to refund of cess credit.
➡️ The Court ordered the department to process the petitioner’s refund application for the cess paid on coal, affirming that such unutilized input tax credit on inputs used in manufacturing exported goods is legally refundable under GST.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Atul Ltd. v. Union of India [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 19949 & 20038 of 2022]
🔥📛 Detention of goods for lack of purchase invoice from unregistered dealer not justified, in presence of invoice & e-way bill: HC
➡️ The petitioner’s vehicle was accompanied by a valid tax invoice and e-way bill during transit. These documents satisfied the legal requirements under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules, governing documents required during movement of goods.
➡️ The GST authorities initiated detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act, citing the petitioner’s failure to produce purchase documents from an unregistered seller. However, this alleged discrepancy was not mentioned in the detention notices or show cause orders, making such grounds procedurally invalid.
➡️ The court held that authorities cannot rely on subsequent documents or grounds that were not part of the original detention notices. Legal proceedings must be based only on discrepancies explicitly stated in the formal notices issued.
➡️ The petitioner, transporting goods from their registered premises to a purchaser, was not legally required to carry or produce documents evidencing purchase from an unregistered dealer at the time of interception. The requirement under the law is only for documents specified in Rule 138A.
➡️ Since all mandatory documents under the GST law were in order and no valid discrepancies were recorded in the notices, the court ruled the detention of goods and vehicle was illegal. Authorities were directed to release the goods and conveyance immediately.
✔️ Kerala HC – Ajith Gopi v. State of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram [WP(C) NO. 27049 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC justified rejection of application for revocation as assessee was recalcitrant about various notices issued to it
➡️ The assessee applied for cancellation of their GST registration but failed to respond to a show cause notice seeking additional information. As a result, the application was rejected, and the department proceeded to cancel the registration retrospectively from the date of registration.
➡️ Despite the earlier cancellation, the registration was later restored. However, upon further scrutiny, a new show cause notice was issued alleging that the registration had originally been obtained by fraud and misstatement, leading to a fresh retrospective cancellation.
➡️ The assessee’s subsequent application for revocation of cancellation was denied by the department, citing repeated non-compliance and failure to respond to prior notices.
➡️ Though the assessee later expressed willingness to file all pending annual returns, the court held that such an offer did not mitigate the assessee’s past conduct of ignoring statutory notices and procedures.
➡️ Given the assessee’s lack of diligence and recalcitrant attitude, the court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere. However, it allowed the assessee the liberty to apply for fresh registration under GST.
✔️ Delhi HC – Shyam Enterprises v. Superintendent, CGST, East Delhi [W.P. (C) NO. 10892 of 2025]
🔥📛 GST Dept. directed to upload amended DRC-07 to allow assessee to avail amnesty: HC
➡️ Although a corrigendum was issued amending the original order-in-original (OIO) pursuant to a show cause notice, the amended demand was not uploaded in Form GST DRC-07 on the GST portal, preventing the petitioner from availing relief under the Amnesty Scheme.
➡️ The court held that since the order had been finally adjudicated (including through the corrigendum), the petitioner was entitled to apply under Section 128A of the CGST Act, which allows for waiver of interest or penalty in non-fraud cases under the Amnesty Scheme.
➡️ The GST Department was directed to upload the corrected demand in Form GST DRC-07 within two weeks, ensuring the order’s visibility on the portal, a necessary precondition for availing the Amnesty Scheme.
➡️ Recognizing that the delay was due to administrative lapse and not on part of the taxpayer, the court allowed for an extension of the deadline under Section 128A so the petitioner could still apply for the scheme benefits.
➡️ If the department failed to upload the amended DRC-07 within the stipulated time, the petitioner was allowed to submit a manual application for the Amnesty Scheme, ensuring their eligibility is not compromised due to technical lapses.
✔️ Delhi HC – New Excellent Televentures LLP v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 10506 of 2025]
🔥📛 SLP dismissed against HC’s ruling directing assessee to file statutory appeal before Appellate Authority
➡️ The assessee was accused of issuing fake invoices for packaging materials to fictitious or non-operational firms. It was alleged that the actual goods were diverted to manufacturers of paan masala and tobacco, forming the basis of the SCN.
➡️ Despite having sufficient time and prior access to relevant material (from other proceedings), the assessee delayed its response to the SCN by over six months and replied only upon receipt of a personal hearing notice.
➡️ The assessee later requested relied upon documents and cross-examination opportunities, but the Court found this request to be delayed and lacking genuine intent. The timing suggested a strategy to stall proceedings rather than a legitimate grievance.
➡️ The Court declined to interfere under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, noting the assessee’s lack of diligence and misuse of insolvency proceedings against defaulting entities to obstruct recovery. Procedural fairness was not found to be violated.
➡️ While dismissing the writ, the High Court granted the assessee 30 days (later extended by two more months) to file an appeal before the appropriate Appellate Authority, clarifying that all legal contentions could be raised at that stage.
✔️ SC – Montage Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi North [SLP (CIVIL) Diary No. 27987 OF 2025]
🔥📛 SLP dismissed against HC ruling that amended Rule 89(5) formula is clarificatory and applies retrospectively
➡️ The Gujarat High Court in Ascent Meditech Ltd. v. UOI held that the amendment to Rule 89(5) via Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 is clarificatory and curative in nature, and hence applicable retrospectively, not just prospectively.
➡️ Assessees who were granted refunds under the pre-amended formula (before 05.07.2022) are still entitled to claim differential refund based on the amended formula, provided their refund or rectification applications are filed within the two-year limitation period under Section 54(1).
➡️ CBIC Circular No. 181/22 dated 10.11.2022, which stated that the amendment was not retrospective, was quashed by the High Court. It was held to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, as it created inequality between taxpayers based solely on the timing of their refund applications.
➡️ The Court clarified that there is no bar on filing a second refund application or rectification to claim the additional eligible refund under the amended Rule 89(5), as long as the claim falls within the statutory time limit.
➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Ascent Meditech Ltd., thereby upholding the retrospective applicability of the amended Rule 89(5) and reinforcing the assessees’ right to seek additional refunds accordingly.
✔️ SC – Union of India v. Tirth Agro Technology (P.) Ltd. [SLP (CIVIL) Diary No. 31632 of 2025]
