LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 08.05.2025
|
🔥📛 Oppo-Mobiles challenges demand exceeding Rs 120 Crores on anvil of limitation; Allahabad-HC stays order ➡️ The Allahabad High Court has stayed the operation of an order demanding over Rs. 120 crores in GST from Oppo Mobiles. ➡️ Oppo Mobiles argued that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the order were issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2023. ➡️ The company highlighted discrepancies in the dates, noting that the order was dated February 28, 2025, but was communicated to them on March 1, 2025, through an auto-generated email. ➡️ Oppo Mobiles also cited the case of Cotton Corporation of India in support of their contention. ➡️ The court has granted the Revenue additional time to file its reply and has listed the matter for further hearing on July 8, 2025. ✔️ Allahabad HC – Oppo Mobile India Private Limited vs Union of India and Another [WRIT TAX No. – 2076 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 HC: 3 personal hearings ‘not a requirement’; Relegates to appeal remedy against penalty order ➡️ The Delhi High Court (HC) dismissed the writ petition of an assessee who had not availed a personal hearing despite receiving notices well in time. The assessee was alleged to have received fake invoices, availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit worth approximately Rs. 172 crores. ➡️ The notice for a personal hearing, dated January 9, 2025, was dispatched on January 17, 2025, and received by the assessee on January 18, 2025, in the late evening. The first two hearings on January 13 and January 16, 2025, had already lapsed, leaving only one hearing on January 21, 2025. ➡️ The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, passed an order against the assessee along with a penalty of Rs. 36 lakhs. The assessee argued that they were entitled to three personal hearings under Section 75(5) of the CGST Act. ➡️ The HC clarified that Section 75(5) only allows for a maximum of three adjournments and does not mandate three hearings. It directed the assessee to approach the Appellate Authority within 30 days and ordered the GST Department to provide the Relied-Upon Documents (RUDs). ➡️ Consequently, the HC disposed of the writ petition, relegating the assessee to the alternative remedy of appeal. ✔️ Delhi HC – SS Enterprises vs. Office Of The Commissioner Central Tax Delhi West And Anr [W.P.(C) 5684/2025] |
|
🔥📛 HC: Disposes writ against ITC reversal intimation, treating it as pre-adjudication notice ➡️ The Tripura High Court disposed of a writ challenging the intimation under Section 74(5) regarding the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) allegedly availed through fictitious firms. ➡️ The court treated the intimation as a pre-adjudication notice, specifically Part A of the prescribed Form GST DRC-01A. ➡️ The assessee was directed to either make the necessary deposit, reverse the ineligible ITC, or file objections in Part B of Form GST DRC-01A. ➡️ The adjudicating officer was instructed that if the issue could be resolved after due notice to the selling dealer, an intimation could also be sent to the selling dealer. ➡️ The purpose of this process is to determine whether the assessee has rightfully availed eligible ITC. ✔️ Tripura HC – Sheuli Rubber Estate vs UOI & ors [WP(C) No.161 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 Assessment order upheld as assessee failed to respond to repeated notices highlighting return mismatches: HC ➡️ The assessee received a notice under Section 61 highlighting discrepancies in their returns after scrutiny, followed by a notice under Section 73 seeking an explanation for these discrepancies. ➡️ Despite multiple reminders, the assessee failed to respond to the notices. ➡️ The GST authority then passed an order under Section 73(9), creating a demand of Rs. 3,20,852.68. ➡️ The assessee challenged the order, arguing that it violated Section 75(6) for not containing reasons and Section 75(7) for not specifying the penalty amount. ➡️ The court held that the authority was not required to anticipate possible defenses when no response was filed to the show cause notice. The notice clearly indicated the tax, penalty, and interest liability, fulfilling the requirements of Section 75(7). The order also contained sufficient reasons for concluding the assessee’s liability, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. ✔️ Allahabad HC – Shashi Contractors v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. – 1453 of 2025] |
