LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 09.05.2025
| 🔥📛 SC: Dismisses Revenue’s challenge to flavoured milk classification under Tariff Heading 0402, attracting 5% GST ➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court classified flavoured milk with some almonds (badam) under Entry 0402 9990, which attracts GST at 5% (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST). ➡️ The High Court followed its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case regarding this classification. ➡️ The Revenue contended that flavoured milk should not fall under the specific entry, arguing that the addition of badam flavour turns it into a special drink rather than milk. ➡️ The High Court rejected the Revenue’s contention, holding that the addition of 0.5% badam flavour does not change the classification of flavoured milk under Tariff Heading 2202. ➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court’s decision, observing that it is not inclined to interfere with the High Court ruling. ✔️ SC – Assistant Commissioner OF Central Tax vs. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Co. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 18877/2025] |
| 🔥📛 SC: Confirms HC order quashing confiscation for mere excess stock detected during survey ➡️ The Allahabad High Court ruled that confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated solely due to excess stock found during an inspection. ➡️ The High Court stated that if excess stock is found, proceedings under Sections 73/74 of the GST Act should be used instead of those under Section 130 read with Rule 120. ➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Allahabad High Court’s ruling. ➡️ The Supreme Court clarified that it is not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s decision. ➡️ However, the Supreme Court also noted that the dismissal of the SLPs does not prevent the petitioners from seeking appropriate legal remedies. ✔️ SC – Additional Commissioner Grade-2, & Anr Vs Vijay Trading Company [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 5881/2025] |
| 🔥📛 HC: Assistance to students seeking admission in foreign university, not Intermediary; Allows refund ➡️ The Bombay High Court (HC) has ruled in favor of IDP Education India, granting a refund for support services provided to IDP Australia related to Indian students seeking courses from foreign universities. ➡️ The Court dismissed the Revenue’s argument that IDP Education India was an “intermediary” under Section 13(8) of the IGST Act, 2017. ➡️ The HC relied on several factors, including a previous favorable ruling by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the pre-GST regime, which has attained finality. ➡️ The Court noted that the concept of an intermediary in GST, as clarified by Circular 159/15/2021-GST, has not changed from the service tax regime, and the scope of services provided by IDP Education India remained consistent post-renewal of the Support Services Agreement. ➡️ The HC concluded that IDP Education India is not an “intermediary” and is entitled to the claimed refund. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for processing the refund claim along with applicable interest within four weeks. ✔️ Bombay HC – IDP Education India Pvt Ltd vs UOI & ors [WRIT PETITION NO. 5144 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2774 OF 2024] |
| 🔥📛 HC: E-mode of appeal filing with all documents including electronic copy of order ‘valid’ ➡️ The Allahabad High Court remanded an electronically filed appeal by an assessee back to the Additional Commissioner, SGST (Appellate Authority) for reconsideration on merits. The court found that the requirement to file a physical certified copy of the order appealed against, as per Rule 108(3), had been removed after an amendment. ➡️ The assessee had discrepancies in their GSTR-3B, GSTR-9, GSTR-1, and GSTR-2A, leading to a show cause notice under Section 73 and a subsequent order. The assessee filed an appeal through e-mode against this order. ➡️ The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the grounds of laches, stating that the certified copy of the order appealed against was not filed as per Rule 108 of the CGST Rules. ➡️ The High Court examined both the unamended and amended versions of Rule 108(3). The unamended rule required the filing of a certified copy of the order appealed against within 7 days of submitting the appeal. The amended rule states that if the decision and order are not uploaded on the common portal, the party must submit a certified copy of the decision within 7 days. ➡️ The Allahabad High Court cited the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Chegg India, which dealt with a similar issue, and allowed the writ petition. ✔️ Allahabad HC – Kishan Chand And Co vs. Additional Commissioner, SGST [WRIT TAX No. – 1826 of 2025] |
