LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 06.10.2025
🔥📛 HC: Calling-out GST-portal glitch of generating personal-hearing notice after decision on appeal, directs for fresh hearing
➡️ The writ petition challenged an Order-in-Appeal (OIA) passed by the Appellate Authority without ensuring that the personal hearing notices were properly uploaded on the GST portal or served to the assessee.
➡️ The Show Cause Notice (SCN) for FY 2019–20 alleged a difference of ₹9.16 crore between output sales and inputs, treating it as value addition liable to GST of ₹1.10 crore payable in cash. The OIA was passed without the assessee’s effective participation.
➡️ The assessee contended that a personal hearing notice appeared to have been issued post-OIA due to “system requirements.” The Revenue admitted that the notices were not uploaded on the portal at the time of the OIA’s upload, causing an automatic, erroneous generation of a later personal hearing notice.
➡️ The High Court observed that since the assessee was not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing, the OIA could not stand. Accordingly, the OIA was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh hearing.
➡️ Recognizing that similar petitions on time-extension notifications under GST are pending before the High Court and Supreme Court, the Court emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice. It directed that future personal hearing notices must be served via email to ensure transparency and procedural compliance.
✔️ Delhi HC – Tahiliani Design Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(C) 14406/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Disposes-off writ against multiple-proceedings with a direction to follow Armour Security guidelines
➡️ The assessee, engaged in extraction and sale of soybean products, faced simultaneous proceedings — a show cause notice under Section 74 by the CGST Commissionerate (Ujjain) and summons under Section 70 by the DGGI (Bhopal). The key dispute centered on whether two different authorities could investigate the same subject matter concurrently.
➡️ The Court examined Section 6(2)(b), which prohibits initiation of proceedings by another authority on the same subject matter once proceedings have been initiated by either the State or Central tax authority. This provision aims to prevent duplication and harassment through multiple investigations.
➡️ Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Armour Security Ltd., the Court held that when one authority has commenced proceedings, another authority must first ascertain whether it covers the same issue before proceeding further. The second authority can act only if the matters are distinct.
➡️ The Court directed the assessee to appear before the Additional Assistant Director (DGGI) and furnish all documents sought. The officer must then verify and determine, in light of the Armour Security guidelines, whether continuation of DGGI proceedings is justified or barred by Section 6(2)(b).
➡️ While disposing of the writ, the High Court continued interim protection against coercive measures until the DGGI officer takes a decision as per Supreme Court principles. The order reinforces the need for procedural discipline among tax authorities and coordination between Central and State wings in GST enforcement.
✔️ MP HC – Agrawal Soya Extracts Pvt. Ltd Vs Union Of India And Others [WRIT PETITION No. 4284 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Remands back to Original Authority for assessing documents of Financial Year 2017-18
➡️ The Court recognized that the initial phase of GST implementation (from 1 July 2017) was marked by significant technical and procedural difficulties (“teething problems”), which reasonably contributed to taxpayer errors in GSTR-3B filings, including short payment of tax and incorrect ITC availment.
➡️ The petitioner contended that the GST portal did not provide an option to edit or correct GSTR-3B returns at that time, resulting in inadvertent mismatches discovered only years later (during FY 2021-22 scrutiny for FY 2017-18).
➡️ The High Court emphasized that the Original Adjudicating Authority is duty-bound to examine all relevant documents and materials while reassessing the liability, rather than relying solely on return data that may reflect system-driven limitations.
➡️ The Court clarified that the Appellate Authority lacks the power to remand matters to the lower authority, as its scope under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act is confined to either allowing or dismissing the appeal—not ordering a de novo adjudication.
➡️ Accordingly, the High Court set aside the demand order and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for reconsideration of all evidence and reconciliation documents that were not earlier reviewed, ensuring a fair assessment in light of the transition-period challenges.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr. [WRIT PETITION NO. 26345 OF 2025 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 HC: Cross-empowerment automatic unless Govt. notifies conditions; Central-officers can issue SCN despite State GST assignment
➡️ The Court held that the power of cross-empowerment between Central and State tax officers under Section 6 of the CGST Act is inbuilt and does not require a separate notification unless the Government imposes specific conditions on such empowerment. Until such a notification is issued, officers appointed under the State GST/UTGST Acts are deemed “proper officers” for purposes of the CGST Act.
➡️ Assessees’ contention that the Joint Commissioner, CGST, lacked jurisdiction because the taxpayers were administratively assigned to J&K SGST authorities was rejected. The Court clarified that jurisdictional assignment is an administrative arrangement and does not curtail statutory powers of CGST officers to issue SCNs, especially in intelligence-based enforcement actions.
➡️ The High Court ruled that monetary thresholds mentioned in CBIC Circular dated 9 February 2018 are purely administrative guidelines for internal allocation. A higher authority under Section 5(2), such as a Joint Commissioner, retains competence to issue a show cause notice regardless of the amount involved.
➡️ Referring to Circular No. 01/2017 and Circular dated 5 October 2018, the Court emphasized that while taxpayers are administratively distributed between Centre and State for routine functions (90:10 and 50:50 ratios), both authorities possess concurrent powers to undertake intelligence-based enforcement actions across the value chain, irrespective of taxpayer allocation.
➡️ Citing Armour Security India Ltd., the Court reaffirmed that intelligence-based enforcement can be initiated by either administration, though audits and scrutiny must follow jurisdictional allocation. Accordingly, all writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to the assessees to raise other factual or legal defenses before the adjudicating authority.
✔️ J&K HC – R.K. Ispat Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C ) No. 1074/2024]
🔥📛 HC: ‘Disproportionality’ in cancelling GSTIN spells ‘economic doom’, activates GST registration
➡️ The Court held that a GST registration cancellation order is unsustainable if the tax demand in the final order exceeds or deviates from the allegations in the show cause notice (SCN). The proceedings must strictly adhere to the contents of the SCN.
➡️ While authorities possess the power to cancel registration, such power must be exercised sparingly and reasonably. Cancellation should be invoked only when no lesser measure can address the non-compliance, given its severe economic consequences for the taxpayer.
➡️ Drawing from criminal law jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that the principle of proportionality applies equally in tax administration. Authorities must assess whether cancellation is necessary and proportionate to the taxpayer’s default before proceeding.
➡️ The Court stressed that non-application of mind—such as failing to evaluate alternative remedies or overlooking inconsistencies between the SCN and the final order—renders the cancellation order legally flawed and liable to be quashed.
➡️ Applying these principles, the HC quashed the registration cancellation orders based on (i) alleged suppression of turnover, (ii) non-filing of returns (as in Suhana Fashion), and (iii) mismatches between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B, holding all to be disproportionate and procedurally defective.
✔️ Madras HC – Tvl. Ponnian Jaya Singh vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Kuzhithurai [W.P.(MD)No. 24482 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: In DGGI investigation over unpaid-taxes, directs to de-freeze bank-account, SCN proceedings to continue
➡️ The Court held that a provisional attachment of a bank account cannot subsist beyond one year as per Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. Since the attachment period had lapsed, the assessee was permitted to operate its bank account.
➡️ While lifting the attachment, the Court clarified that ongoing proceedings pursuant to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 74 would continue unaffected, as the adjudication process is independent of the attachment order.
➡️ The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Gurugram Zonal Unit, had earlier initiated an investigation under Section 74 for alleged unpaid taxes and issued Form GST DRC-22 directing the assessee’s bank to provisionally attach its account.
➡️ The Court relied on its earlier decision in Krish Overseas v. Union of India, reaffirming that the power of provisional attachment under Section 83 must be exercised strictly within statutory limits and cannot be extended beyond the prescribed one-year period.
➡️ The writ petition was disposed of after the Court recorded that the attachment order had automatically ceased to have effect upon expiry of one year. The order emphasizes the temporal limitation on revenue authorities’ attachment powers and reinforces the balance between investigation powers and taxpayer rights.
✔️ Delhi HC – Tirupati Steel through Proprietor Rahul Mittal vs. UOI & Ors. [W.P.(C) 12844/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Courier Agent disputing SCN basis non-compliance of Rule 142, Section 74(5) not tenable
➡️ The Delhi High Court held that non-issuance of a pre-show cause consultation notice does not invalidate the SCN under Section 74 of the CGST Act. Since the assessee’s consistent stance was that no tax was payable, the Court found that such consultation would have served no practical purpose.
➡️ The Court clarified that Section 74(5) merely permits an assessee to make its own ascertainment of tax dues prior to an SCN, in cases where the department has not communicated its intended demand. It does not impose a statutory requirement on the department to first specify the tax amount.
➡️ The DGGI’s investigation into 41 companies revealed that the petitioner had not discharged GST on services imported from overseas channel partners, leading to issuance of an SCN demanding around ₹32 crores with penalties.
➡️ While the Court observed that the assessee ignored multiple summons and never submitted a written explanation to the Department’s allegations, it also criticized the Department for sending hearing-related communications improperly—either after or before the scheduled hearing dates.
➡️ Although the Court sustained the SCN, it granted the assessee 30 additional days to file a reply. The petitioner was permitted to raise the issue of non-compliance with Section 74(5) before the adjudicating authority during the adjudication process.
✔️ Delhi HC – Dawn Express Courier Del Private Limited vs. UOI & Ors. [W.P.(C) 12832/2025]
🔥📛 GST registration cancellation to be set aside as order lacked reasons and did not consider taxpayer’s explanation: HC
➡️ The proper officer issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 20 September 2024 alleging that the petitioner had availed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC).
➡️ The petitioner duly submitted a reply, offering explanations and supporting details to justify the ITC claimed.
➡️ Despite the reply, the officer cancelled the GST registration retrospectively from 19 October 2023 by an order dated 10 June 2025, without adequately addressing the petitioner’s explanation.
➡️ The impugned order was found to lack any discussion or reasoning concerning the petitioner’s submissions on excess ITC or the necessity for retrospective cancellation.
➡️ The Court held that non-consideration of the reply and absence of justifiable reasons rendered the order unsustainable; hence, it was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision in accordance with law.
✔️ Delhi HC – Gaurav v. Superintendent, CGST [W.P.(C) 14022 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC directs CCTV footage of residential premises to be accessed by Dept. in presence of family member and representative
➡️ The GST Department conducted search and seizure operations at the assessee’s residence and related business premises. The court held that the proceedings were prima facie valid since “reasons to believe” were duly recorded by the proper officer, satisfying the statutory requirement under Section 67 of the CGST Act.
➡️ The search and seizure actions were found to be lawful and appropriate measures to unearth alleged tax evasion. The element of surprise in such operations was deemed necessary and within the legal framework of the GST Act.
➡️ Claims regarding improper recording of the panchnama and incorrect mention of the seizure of CCTV footage were noted; however, these did not vitiate the legality of the entire operation, as the core procedural safeguards had been followed.
➡️ The court recognized that CCTV footage from residential premises could contain private family data. It ruled that such personal footage must not be accessed or disseminated in any manner that infringes on the family’s privacy rights.
➡️ Officials were directed to access and view CCTV footage only in the presence of at least one family member of the assessee and an authorized representative. Only relevant footage pertaining to the investigation could be copied; all remaining data had to be promptly returned to the assessee.
✔️ Delhi HC – Genesis Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi East [W.P.(C) No. 13821 of 2025]
