LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 09 & 10.09.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine penalty provision applicability on non-taxable person; Stays coercive action
➡️ The Director of M/s Progressive Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition before the Delhi HC against a penalty imposed under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
➡️ The Petitioner argued that Section 122(1) applies only to “taxable persons” (i.e., the registered entity), whereas a Director, being a non-taxable person, could only be proceeded against under Section 122(3).
➡️ The case turns on whether the Department erred in invoking Section 122(1) against the Director personally, instead of using the specific provision designed for individuals connected with the company.
➡️ The HC directed the Revenue to file a counter affidavit within four weeks, with the Petitioner given time for rejoinder. Meanwhile, the Court ordered that no coercive action be taken against the Director concerning the penalty order.
➡️ The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 17, 2025, where the legal interpretation of Sections 122(1) vs. 122(3) in relation to directors’ liability will be examined.
✔️ Delhi HC – Amit Gupta vs Additional Commissioner, CGST- Delhi West Commissionerate & Ors [W.P.(C) 13065/2025]
🔥📛 SC: Section 130 proceedings post-stock discrepancy found during survey invalid; Dismisses Revenue’s SLP
➡️ The case concerned a registered dealer where stock discrepancies were found during a survey under section 67 of the CGST Act.
➡️ Based on the survey, the Revenue initiated proceedings under section 130 (confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty).
➡️ The Allahabad High Court held that mere stock discrepancy does not warrant confiscation proceedings; instead, proceedings should be under sections 73 or 74 (relating to demand and recovery of tax, interest, and penalty).
➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP), thereby upholding the High Court’s position that section 130 cannot be invoked solely on stock discrepancy found during survey.
➡️ The SC clarified that dismissal of the SLP does not prevent Revenue from pursuing other appropriate remedies in accordance with law, provided they align with the correct statutory framework.
✔️ SC – Additional Commissioner Grade-2 & anr. Vs Dayal Product [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 44119/2025]
🔥📛 SC: Denial of adjournments, illegible RUDs supply, not natural justice violation; Dismisses SLP, upholds HC
➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the assessee’s SLP, holding that the case was not fit for discretionary jurisdiction and reiterated that statutory appellate remedies must be pursued.
➡️ While refusing interference, SC extended the time to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority from July 15, 2025 to October 15, 2025, granting relief on limitation.
➡️ The High Court clarified that although the CGST Act permits up to three adjournments, it does not oblige the authority to grant all three in every case.
➡️ The HC held that supplying partly illegible documents does not automatically vitiate adjudication proceedings, unless prejudice is clearly demonstrated.
➡️ The adjudication order confirming fraudulent ITC availment of ₹7.08 crore (part of a larger ₹155 crore GST fraud) was upheld, reinforcing that appellate forums are the proper avenue for challenging such orders.
✔️ SC -MHJ Metaltechs Private Limited Vs Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 33710/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Directs to refund over Rs. 100 crores partial-recovery by SGST-Department after statutory pre-deposit adjustment
➡️ An assessment order raised a demand of over ₹200 crores; recovery proceedings under Section 79(1)(c) of the APGST Act led to ₹170 crores being recovered from the assessee’s HSBC Bank account through attachment.
➡️ The High Court held that this recovery would be deemed to include the mandatory 10% pre-deposit required under Section 107(6) of the APGST Act for filing an appeal.
➡️ Once the 10% pre-deposit is satisfied, a deemed stay on recovery automatically operates under Section 107, and no provision allows Revenue to insist on maintaining a further balance in the bank account.
➡️ To protect Revenue’s interests, the Chief Commissioner required the assessee to give an undertaking to retain the refunded amount and any future sale proceeds in the bank account until disposal of the appeal.
➡️ The High Court directed release of the recovered money, subject to the assessee providing the undertaking, thereby allowing operation of the bank account while safeguarding Revenue.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – Wingtech Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO: 22461/2025]
🔥📛 HC set-aside order of cancellation of GST registration as SCN was issued without mentioning any specific defect
➡️ The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled for failure to properly furnish returns, and no reply was filed to the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
➡️ The revocation request was denied after physical verification revealed no business at the principal place of business (PPOB), and the registered contact number indicated the firm was not operating at the declared address.
➡️ The Court noted that cancellation of GST registration has severe implications for the assessee, warranting reconsideration of the case.
➡️ The impugned orders were set aside, with directions that the petitioner must file a reply to the SCN explaining the lapses in return filing.
➡️ Since the assessee was not available at the registered PPOB, they were directed to furnish updated business address details, and the authority must pass a fresh order thereafter.
✔️ Delhi HC – Cosmo Beauty World v. Superintendent, Range 81 CGST [W.P. (C) No. 12905 of 2025]
🔥📛 SLP dismissed against ruling of HC whereby assessee was permitted to rectify clerical/arithmetic error in GSTR-1
➡️ The assessee made errors such as wrong invoice numbers/dates, incorrect recipient details, omission of some invoices despite full tax payment, and payment of IGST under SGST/CGST heads.
➡️ Mistakes were attributed to carelessness of a part-time accountant, lack of knowledge, and challenges with the newly introduced GST portal during its initial phase.
➡️ Errors were identified only in December 2019 when customers highlighted discrepancies in the returns filed.
➡️ The Court allowed rectification of GSTR-1, holding that clerical/arithmetical mistakes should not be denied correction in absence of mala fide intent, especially since taxes had been duly paid.
➡️ Following the precedent in C.B.I & C. v. Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2025), the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP, confirming that such rectifications are permissible and the High Court’s decision stands.
✔️ SC – Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. Deepa Traders [SLP (CIVIL) Diary No. 39862 OF 2025]
