LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 09.04.2025 – A2Z TAXCORP LLP

➡️ The Andhra   Pradesh High Court quashed penalty proceedings against DTDC initiated under   Section 68 read with Section 129 of the CGST Act regarding goods stocked in   their warehouse.

➡️ The court   accepted DTDC’s submission that movement of goods is a pre-condition for   imposition of penalty under Section 129, and disposed of the writ petition   after the Revenue agreed not to impose any penalty on DTDC under the said   notice.

➡️ Previously,   the High Court had granted a stay on the proceedings, noting that as a   courier company, DTDC cannot be held liable for penalties as they are not the   owners of the goods.

➡️ The court   pointed out that Section 67 of the CGST Act uses the term goods “kept” or   “secreted” in “any” place, which is not applicable to DTDC’s case.

➡️ Section 68 of   the CGST Act deals with the inspection of goods in movement, requiring the   person in charge of a conveyance carrying consignments of goods of certain   value to carry prescribed documents and devices.

✔️ Andhra Pradesh   HC – DTDC Express Ltd. v. Asst. commissioner of Central Tax [WRIT PETITION   NO: 461/2025]

➡️ The Jharkhand   High Court (HC) quashed an order rejecting the refund of Input Tax Credit   (ITC) of Coal Cess, finding that the rejection was based on extraneous   grounds beyond the requirements of the CGST Act, Rules, and binding   Circulars.

➡️ The assessee,   a manufacturer of steel and sponge iron, had filed a refund application for   unutilized ITC of Compensation Cess paid on coal used as input, but the   refund was rejected on several grounds, including non-furnishing of payment   receipt within 180 days of export, non-furnishing of export proof within 90   days, absence of a non-prosecution declaration, non-furnishing of an   undertaking under the proviso to Section 11(2) of the Cess Act, and   non-submission of a statement under Paragraph 43(c) of the 2019 Circular.

➡️ The HC   clarified that, under Rule 89(2)(b) and (c), proof of payment is only   required for the export of services and not goods, and that only a   reconciliation statement of the Shipping Bill and Export Invoices is   required, as annexed by the assessee to the refund application.

➡️ The HC cited the 2019 GST Circular, which states that insisting on proof of realization of   export proceeds for processing refund claims related to the export of goods   is not envisaged in the law and should not be insisted upon. The HC directed   the refund of ITC of the Cess amounting to about Rs. 1.2 crores.

➡️ The HC found   the rejection on all other counts to be “bad in law” and   “contrary to binding Circulars,” citing Rule 96A and the 2019 &   2023 Circulars regarding proof of export within 90 days of the invoice. The   HC also rejected the Revenue’s stance that the refund rejection order is   appealable, noting that the GST Tribunal is still not functional, and   accordingly allowed the writ petition.

✔️ Jharkhand HC   – TATA Steel Ltd Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P. (T) No. 2900 of 2024

➡️ A show cause   notice was issued to the assessee, but it did not disclose any intent or   provide reasons for contemplating the cancellation of registration from a   retrospective date.

➡️ The revenue   authorities then passed an impugned order cancelling the assessee’s   registration retrospectively.

➡️ The assessee   challenged this order, referring to the judgment in Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises   v. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi.

➡️ The court   held that the absence of reasons in the original show cause notice for the   proposed retrospective cancellation made the impugned order unsustainable.

➡️ Consequently,   the court directed that the cancellation of registration should take effect   from the date of the show cause notice, rather than the retrospective date   specified in the impugned order.

✔️ Delhi HC – Prince   Chaudhary v. Delhi State Goods and Service Tax [W.P.(C) 4692 of 2024]

➡️ The assessee   challenged Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28-12-2023 and   Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 16-01-2024, which extended the time   for adjudication of show cause notices issued for the period 2019-20 under   Section 168A.

➡️ The assessee   argued that these notifications were issued without the recommendation of the   GST Council, and if the notifications were set aside, the impugned order   under Section 73 could not have been passed beyond the period of limitation.

➡️ The matter   was to be listed for further proceedings.

➡️ The   respondents were directed to file a reply in response to the assessee’s   challenge.

➡️ Meanwhile, an   ad-interim order was granted to the assessee until further orders.

✔️ Bombay HC – Sunguard   Builders LLP v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 694 OF 2025]