LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 08.04.2025 – A2Z TAXCORP LLP

➡️ The   petitioner’s company provides machinery on rent and was hired by L&T   Limited for a one-day project in Ghaziabad. The goods were transported with a   delivery challan and an e-way bill.

➡️ After   completing the work, the petitioner generated a new e-way bill and delivery   challan for the return journey. However, the vehicle was intercepted, and the   documents were produced by the driver.

➡️ The case of   the assessee was that there was a typographical error in the e-way bill,   where the vehicle number was incorrectly mentioned as HR-46C-4623 instead of   HR-58C-4623. This error led to the claim that no valid documents were   produced.

➡️ Despite the   error, a physical verification (MOV-04) found no discrepancy in the goods.   However, the detention order under Section 129(1) indicated that the goods   were not covered by valid documents.

➡️ The court   held that the principle from Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX   No. 1297 of 2023] (Allahabad) should apply, and the goods should be released   due to the minor typographical error. The impugned order was set aside.

✔️ Allahabad HC   – SL Yadav Cranes (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. – 607 of 2025]

➡️ An assessee,   a dealer in scrap steel, claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on invoices   from various suppliers for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and   2019-20. However, the tax authorities discovered that these suppliers were   non-existent dealers engaged in circular trading. They merely passed   ineligible credit without paying any GST in cash.

➡️ The assessee   challenged the assessment orders that denied the ITC. The assessee argued   that they had discharged their entire tax liability through ITC without any   cash payment.

➡️ Prima facie   evidence indicated that the assessee was an accessory to passing ineligible   ITC. This suggests that the assessee was aware of or complicit in the   fraudulent activities of the suppliers.

➡️ The writ   petitions filed by the assessee were dismissed. This means that the legal   challenge by the assessee was not successful in overturning the assessment   orders that denied the ITC.

➡️ Despite the   dismissal of the writ petitions, the assessee was given the liberty to file a   statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. This provides the   assessee with another opportunity to challenge the assessment orders through   a different legal process.

✔️ Madras HC – Tvl.   R.M.K. Enterprises v. State Tax officer [W.P.Nos.10966, 10968 and 10973 of   2021]

➡️ The Delhi   High Court has directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST &   Central Excise to depute at least two litigation officials to coordinate with   various Commissionerates. These officials are tasked with providing expedited   instructions to the Department’s counsels for the first-date disposal of GST   cases that have procedural issues.

➡️ The High   Court observed that numerous GST cases with procedural issues are filed   daily. These issues include non-communication of replies, personal hearing   notices, non-receipt of emails, and other notices by the Department.

➡️ The HC opined   that such cases can be disposed of on the first date itself, provided the   concerned Department gives instructions to its counsels. Accordingly, the HC   has directed that a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Commissioner, GST   through the legal section of the GST Department.

➡️ In the   instant case, the HC noted two procedural issues: non-receipt of the personal   hearing notice and non-consideration of the assessee’s written submissions.   To address these issues, the HC has given two specific directions.

➡️ The assessee   is required to furnish GST portal screenshots showing that written   submissions were uploaded. The Department is required to provide proof from   the GST portal showing how the hearing notice was communicated. The matter   has been listed for further hearing on April 21.

✔️ Delhi HC – Raj   International Vs Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West & ors. [W.P.(C)   4096/2025]