LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 09.10.2025
🔥📛 HC: Allows filing of pending returns after payment; suspends registration cancellation
➡️ The assessee contested the Show Cause Notice (SCN), the cancellation order of its GST registration, and the appellate rejection of its appeal on limitation grounds, arguing that the cancellation was unjustified and procedurally flawed.
➡️ The Court noted that the assessee had deposited a total of ₹22,67,124, comprising GST ₹10,29,540, interest ₹11,57,574, and late fees ₹80,000, demonstrating bona fide intent to comply with statutory obligations.
➡️ Considering the assessee’s compliance efforts, the High Court directed the Revenue to suspend the effect of the registration cancellation for four weeks, enabling the assessee to upload and file all pending GST returns.
➡️ The Court clarified that, upon filing the pending returns, the Revenue must consider the withdrawal of the cancellation order, allowing the assessee to regularize its GST registration status.
➡️ The matter was listed for further hearing on October 9, 2025, with directions for the Revenue to report on the assessee’s compliance and the status of registration regularization.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Deep Chemicals Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6135 of 2025]
🔥📛 Orissa HC stays Rs. 98.83 cr demand on Bhushan Power for pre-Resolution Plan period
➡️ The Orissa High Court granted an interim stay on a ₹98.83 crore GST demand (excluding interest and penalties) raised for the period prior to the effective date of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.’s (BPSL) approved Resolution Plan.
➡️ BPSL’s Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT on September 5, 2019, and affirmed with modifications by the NCLAT on February 17, 2020, marking the “effective date” beyond which any new claims are barred.
➡️ The GST demand pertained to July 2017–January 2020, a period preceding the plan’s effectiveness. The Assessee argued that no such tax liability was ever claimed or lodged by the GST authorities during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
➡️ Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. and JSW Steel Ltd., the Assessee contended that once a resolution plan is approved, all prior dues or unclaimed liabilities stand extinguished and cannot be recovered later.
➡️ The Court issued notice to the tax authorities and observed that a similar pre-CIRP tax demand had already been stayed by a coordinate bench (June 4, 2021). Pending final adjudication, the current GST demand remains stayed.
✔️ Orissa HC – Bhusan Power and Steel Limited vs UOI & ors [WP(C) No.12345 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Pre-decisional hearing not mandatory for provisional attachment; Partly quashes Single-judge ruling
➡️ The Karnataka High Court clarified that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not mandate a pre-decisional hearing before issuing a provisional attachment order. The Court emphasized that the provision, when read plainly, provides no express or implied requirement for such a hearing.
➡️ The Court noted that Rule 159(5) acts as the safeguard mechanism, enabling the affected taxpayer to raise objections and seek a post-attachment hearing, thereby satisfying principles of natural justice at a later stage.
➡️ The Single Judge’s reliance on K-9 Enterprises was held to be misapplied, as that decision did not pertain to provisional attachment under Section 83, making it irrelevant to the present context.
➡️ The Court underscored that Section 83 can be invoked only when proceedings under Chapters XII, XIV, or XV of the CGST Act are initiated. Mere issuance of summons under Section 70 does not qualify as such proceedings, aligning with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Radha Krishan Industries and Armour Security.
➡️ As no qualifying proceedings were pending, the Court held that the provisional attachment of the taxpayer’s bank account was unsustainable and therefore quashed the attachment. However, the Revenue’s appeal was partly allowed only to the extent of clarifying that no pre-decisional hearing is required under Section 83.
✔️ Karnataka HC – The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Anr. Vs. Narasimhan Engineering Contractors Private Limited [WRIT APPEAL NO. 1015 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Interest mandatory on undisputed-refund delayed beyond 60 days of application; Reiterates pre-GST law
➡️ The Court reaffirmed that interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act is mandatory and compensatory in nature, payable automatically after 60 days from the date of receipt of a refund application, irrespective of the reasons for delay.
➡️ The delay in sanctioning the IGST refund arose solely from technical glitches in the GSTN–ICEGATE integration system. The assessee’s filings—Shipping Bills and GST returns—were found accurate and compliant, ruling out any fault on its part.
➡️ The Revenue’s own affidavit acknowledged a “transmission error” resulting in a Nil scroll amount from GSTN and the absence of a corrective mechanism at Hazira Port. Consequently, the refund was eventually sanctioned manually after Court intervention.
➡️ The Court held the Revenue’s argument—that the delay was due to alleged errors in the assessee’s documentation—as untenable, since no specific inaccuracy was substantiated on record.
➡️ Drawing from Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Panji Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act), the HC reiterated that interest liability arises automatically once the statutory period lapses, regardless of administrative or technical causes of delay.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Vineet Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17720 of 2024]
🔥📛 HC: Amount credited in ECL tantamount to Government deposit, satisfies bail-condition; Rejects Revenue’s plea
➡️ The Gujarat High Court held that the Respondent had duly complied with the bail condition by depositing approximately ₹90 lakhs into the Government account through his Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) within the stipulated period.
➡️ The Revenue argued that the payment was invalid as it was made through the Company’s ECL instead of Form GST DRC-03, claiming the funds did not reach the Government exchequer. The Court dismissed this contention, noting documentary evidence that the full amount had indeed been credited to the Government account.
➡️ Referring to Section 49 and the Arya Cotton Industries decision, the Court reaffirmed that once tax is deposited by generating a challan and credited to the Government account, the liability stands discharged on that date—irrespective of whether Form DRC-03 is used.
➡️ The Court found the Revenue’s apprehension that the accused might later utilize or seek a refund of the credited amount to be unfounded, as the Respondent had undertaken not to use or claim refund of the deposited sum.
➡️ Emphasizing that bail cancellation requires supervening circumstances or breach of conditions, the Court reiterated that the standards for granting and cancelling bail are distinct. In the absence of any violation, cancellation was not justified.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Superintendent (AE) Vs Versus Virbhadrasinh Pratapsinh Chauhan & Anr [In R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 20070 of 2024]
🔥📛 HC: Circular granting relief on reinsurance-services retrospective; Quashes demand against Oriental-Insurance
➡️ The Oriental Insurance Company was assessed for GST liability on reinsurance services availed between July 1, 2017, and January 24, 2018. The original and appellate authorities upheld the tax demand.
➡️ The CBIC Circular No. 228/22/2024-GST, issued pursuant to the 53rd GST Council Meeting, clarified that GST on reinsurance (including retrocession) of specified general and life insurance schemes for the period July 1, 2017, to July 26, 2018 stands regularized on an “as is where is” basis, effectively granting relief for that period.
➡️The Revenue contended that since the adjudication and appellate orders were passed before issuance of the Circular, the assessee could not claim the benefit retrospectively.
➡️The assessee cited AXA France Vie-India, where the Delhi High Court had held that the exemption on reinsurance services under government-sponsored insurance schemes was retrospective, quashing similar IGST demands.
➡️The Delhi HC held that the Circular’s benefit extends to the assessee, rejecting the Revenue’s stance. It ruled that the Circular applies squarely to reinsurance services for the relevant period, and the AXA France Vie-India decision is equally applicable, thereby setting aside both impugned orders in favor of the assessee.
✔️ Delhi HC – The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North & Anr [W.P.(C) 10171/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Educational consultancy services to foreign -universities qualify as ‘export’, not ‘intermediary’; Sustains Refund
➡️ The Delhi High Court held that the assessee’s consultancy services rendered to foreign educational institutions (FEIs) for facilitating overseas admissions constitute export of services under the IGST Act, and do not fall within the scope of “intermediary” under Section 2(13).
➡️ The assessee provided educational consultancy to Indian students and received commission from FEIs upon successful admissions. The Revenue contended that the assessee acted as an “agent” or “intermediary” of the FEIs and, therefore, was not entitled to export benefits under Section 13(8)(b).
➡️ The Court, relying on Ernst & Young Ltd., K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court), and Oceanic Consultants Pvt. Ltd., observed that consultancy services directly provided to foreign universities are independent services rendered on a principal-to-principal basis, not intermediary facilitation.
➡️ The Court clarified that the assessee, though promoting FEIs’ interests, operates as an independent consultant, not as their agent. Therefore, its services cannot be classified as intermediary services since there is no element of arranging or facilitating supply between two other parties.
➡️ The Court also noted the 56th GST Council’s recommendation to omit Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, confirming that the place of supply for intermediary services would now align with Section 13(2)—i.e., the recipient’s location—thereby eliminating earlier ambiguities and reinforcing the export nature of such services.
✔️ Delhi HC – Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax (DGST), Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited [W.P.(C) 10189/2025]
🔥📛 HC: 6% interest payable if refund unpaid within 60 days from First Authority order
➡️ The Bombay High Court held that interest at 6% per annum is payable to the assessee when GST refunds are not granted within 60 days from the date of the original refund application, even if the refund was initially rejected and later sanctioned on appeal.
➡️ The Court clarified that the 60-day period for interest calculation begins from the order of the First Authority (adjudicating authority), not the First Appellate Authority, rejecting the Revenue’s contention that the clock restarts after the appellate order or re-application.
➡️ Following Lupin Laboratories Ltd., the Court reiterated that:
—> 6% interest applies if the refund is delayed beyond 60 days from the First Authority’s order; and
—> 9% interest applies if refund is delayed beyond 60 days from the Appellate Authority’s order or from an application made pursuant to such order.
—> However, since the assessee only sought 6% interest, the same was granted.
➡️ The Court emphasized that a refund wrongly denied by the adjudicating authority does not absolve the Revenue of its obligation to pay statutory interest. A later finding of unsustainability cannot deprive the assessee of compensation for the period of delay.
➡️ Relying on Ranbaxy Laboratories, Lupin Ltd., Bansal International, and Qualcomm India, the Court reaffirmed that statutory interest is compensatory in nature, ensuring the taxpayer is compensated for undue delay in refund, regardless of the appellate process.
✔️ Bombay HC – Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 5312 OF 2024]
🔥📛 SC dismisses Revenue’s SLP on section 107 permitting attachment of funds after pre-deposit payment
➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue Department’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment.
➡️ The High Court had ruled that under Section 107 of the GST Act, authorities cannot attach or restrain funds once the taxpayer deposits 10% of the disputed tax to file an appeal.
➡️ The HC had also permitted the assessee to operate its bank accounts, observing that the Revenue had already made partial recovery.
✔️ SC – Deputy Commissioner ST vs. Wingtech Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27302/2025]
🔥📛 Rejection of appeal filed within extended period as per Notification No. 53/2023 was unsustainable: HC
➡️ The adjudicating authority issued orders on 25 July 2023, and the petitioners filed their appeals on 12 January 2024. The appellate authority rejected the appeals as being time-barred under the normal limitation period.
➡️ The petitioners invoked the said notification, which extended the limitation period for filing appeals up to 31 January 2024, in view of delays caused by administrative and transitional issues.
➡️ Although the adjudication orders were passed after 31 March 2023, the Court held that the extension under Notification No. 53/2023 applied to all appeals where the limitation period had not already expired as on the date of the notification.
➡️ The Court found that since the appeals were filed before the extended deadline of 31 January 2024, they were within the permissible limitation period, and the rejection of appeals on limitation grounds was legally unsustainable.
➡️ The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored for adjudication on merits. The ruling reinforces that benefit of extended limitation under CBIC notifications must be granted when appeals are filed within the notified extended period.
✔️ Bombay HC – Esquire Electronics v. State of Maharashtra [WRIT PETITION Nos. 5411 and 5127 OF 2024]
🔥📛 SLP dismissed against HC order that no coercive action on GST penalty for missing biltee no. if 20% of disputed amount paid
➡️ The penalty was imposed on the assessee for not mentioning the biltee (lorry receipt) number on the tax invoice, which authorities treated as a contravention under GST compliance.
➡️ The assessee challenged the penalty, arguing that Rule 46 of the U.P. GST Rules does not mandate mentioning the biltee number on a tax invoice; therefore, the imposition of penalty was without legal basis.
➡️ The High Court observed that the matter warranted consideration and directed the respondents to file a counter-affidavit, indicating that the issue was prima facie arguable and not conclusively against the assessee.
➡️ The High Court granted interim relief by restraining coercive action against the assessee, subject to the condition that the assessee deposits 20% of the disputed penalty amount, adjusting any amount already paid.
➡️ The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s interim order and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP), effectively upholding the High Court’s protective directions.
✔️ SC – Varun Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 [SLP (CIVIL) Diary No. 4060 of 2025]
🔥📛 DGAP claim of Rs. 1.49 cr profiteering rejected as ITC benefit was passed and no violation found: GSTAT
➡️ A complaint was lodged by CEDL alleging profiteering by the respondent, a supplier of dental equipment, on two specific products—‘Lava CNC 240 Milling Machine’ and ‘Sintering Furnace D664’—amounting to ₹4.78 lakh.
➡️ The DGAP’s report confirmed profiteering, and the NAA directed the respondent to pass on ₹4.78 lakh with interest to CEDL. Additionally, NAA ordered a fresh investigation covering all other products supplied by the respondent.
➡️ In the reinvestigation, DGAP concluded that the respondent had not provided evidence linking price reductions to Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits. Consequently, the entire ITC availed was treated as unpassed benefit, calculating total alleged profiteering at ₹1.49 crore.
➡️ Pursuant to the Tribunal’s direction, DGAP verified the position with the respondent’s buyers. Out of 56 buyers, 50 confirmed receipt of ITC benefits, 5 businesses were closed, and only 1 buyer (unregistered) reported not receiving ITC benefit.
➡️ Based on verification results, the Tribunal found no substantive evidence of profiteering worth ₹1.49 crore. The DGAP’s report was rejected, and proceedings were closed, affirming that the respondent had largely passed on ITC benefits to customers.
✔️ GSTAT Delhi – DGAP v. Theco India (P.) Ltd. [NAPA/17/PB/2025]
🔥📛 Without issuing ASMT-10 to intimate return discrepancies found in scrutiny, demand u/s 73 is invalid- HC
➡️ The Court held that before invoking Section 73, the Revenue must first conduct a proper scrutiny under Section 61 and issue Form GST ASMT-10 to communicate any discrepancies found in the returns. Since no ASMT-10 was issued, initiation of proceedings under Section 73 was procedurally invalid.
➡️ The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 73 must be based on a conclusion drawn from scrutiny. In this case, the Revenue proceeded without first confronting the taxpayer with discrepancies or obtaining their explanation, violating the scheme of the Act.
➡️ The alleged non-disclosure of details in Table 14 of Form GSTR-9C could not justify Section 73 proceedings since submission of that table was made optional by government notifications for FY 2017–18 to FY 2022–23.
➡️ The GST law mandates that a taxpayer must be given an opportunity to explain or rectify discrepancies identified during scrutiny. Only upon failure to do so can Section 73 be invoked. Denial of this opportunity renders the demand order unsustainable.
➡️ Since the Revenue neither followed the mandatory process under Section 61 nor established a valid basis for invoking Section 73, the demand and recovery proceedings were declared contrary to the statutory scheme and therefore invalid.
✔️ Gauhati HC – Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [WP(C) No. 6960 of 2023]
🔥📛 SLP dismissed against HC ruling that writ not maintainable against ITC disallowance as remedy u/s 107 existed
➡️ During scrutiny of returns for FY 2019–20, the department found that the assessee had wrongly availed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to ₹8.59 crore due to purchases from non-existent suppliers, constituting fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
➡️ The assessee submitted ledgers, invoices, and proof of bank payments, asserting that purchases were made before the suppliers’ GST registrations were cancelled and that all transactions were genuine and duly recorded.
➡️ The authority held that the assessee failed to produce evidence of actual physical movement of goods, despite specific requests in the show-cause notice. Given the trade in precious metals, proof of physical delivery was essential to substantiate ITC claims.
➡️ The Court upheld that the order was passed after due consideration of the assessee’s submissions and supplier details. It rejected the contention of violation of natural justice, noting that the non-existence of suppliers and lack of transport or delivery evidence justified denial of ITC.
➡️ The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision but granted the assessee liberty to raise all grounds before the appellate authority. The appellate body was directed to decide the appeal independently on merits, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.
✔️ SC – Krupa Jewellers v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax – 3 [SLP Appeal (C) No(s). 25414 of 2025]
🔥📛 Petitioner is directed to avail appellate remedy for overlapping GST ITC demands: HC
➡️ The petitioner faced overlapping tax demands from DGST, CGST (East), and CGST (North) for the same period and on identical issues related to availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), leading to duplication of proceedings.
➡️ The demands were founded on allegations that the petitioner availed ITC based on invoices issued by fictitious and non-existent third-party firms, without any actual supply of goods or services.
➡️ The court acknowledged that there was partial overlap between the impugned orders, as the alleged ITC transactions involved numerous entities and large monetary values running into several hundred crores.
➡️ The court held that the petitioner should avail the alternate statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority to challenge the impugned orders, as the issues involved extensive factual examination.
➡️ It was directed that the petitioner must make a pre-deposit only for the demand raised under Impugned Order No. 2. No pre-deposit was required for Impugned Order No. 3 due to overlapping amounts, and the Show Cause Notice (SCN) covering the same issues was ordered to be dropped.
✔️ Delhi HC – R.U. Overseas v. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) [W.P. (C) no. 14279 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Department is directed to recredit ITC manually due to technical issue in GST portal: HC
➡️ The assessee’s refund claim of accumulated ITC (till March 2018) under the inverted duty structure was sanctioned for ₹32.20 lakh, out of which ₹23.32 lakh was adjusted towards alleged erroneous refunds for July 2017–February 2018, and only ₹8.88 lakh was actually disbursed.
➡️ The assessee requested issuance of Form PMT-03 to recredit the ITC amount (₹23.32 lakh) adjusted earlier, as the refund adjustment effectively reduced their eligible ITC balance.
➡️ The department rejected the PMT-03 request, stating that the GST portal did not allow recredit for amounts adjusted against any demand or erroneous refund, thus citing a technical limitation as the reason for non-issuance.
➡️ The assessee had already deposited the interest demanded on the earlier erroneous refund, thereby fulfilling their liability and reinforcing their entitlement to the recredit.
➡️ The Court held that the assessee’s recredit claim was legally valid and only delayed due to portal constraints. The department was directed to recredit ₹23.32 lakh ITC within four weeks, using manual intervention if required.
✔️ Delhi HC – Mohan Footcare (P.) Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of CGST [W.P.(C) No. 6804 of 2024]
