LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 11.06.2025
🔥📛 Bombay HC to examine category of demand, penalty for wrong ITC claim
➡️ The Bombay High Court is hearing a challenge by an importer of polyester recycled yarn against a Show Cause Notice alleging fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims through fake invoices.
➡️ The Court has issued a direction that no coercive action shall be taken based on the Show Cause Notice or the related impugned order during the pendency of the matter.
➡️ The petitioner has relied on Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST to argue the applicable category of fake invoice-related ITC claims relevant for determining demand and penalty.
➡️ The High Court has taken note of the petitioner’s prima facie submissions regarding seven similar proceedings already initiated against it.
➡️ Time has been granted to the Union of India to file a reply by June 11, as the matter involves substantive legal issues under GST law.
✔️ Bombay HC – Heet Rakesh Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14084 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Noting post-dated relied upon documents, Delhi HC seeks affidavit from GST Department on order-date
➡️ The Delhi High Court, in the case involving Indus Towers, is examining the validity of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) that may be time-barred, despite the benefit of extended limitation periods granted under Notification No. 09/2023 and 56/2023.
➡️ The Court has directed the tax department to file a short affidavit clarifying when the SCN was actually issued and whether it complies with the statutory time limits under the GST Act.
➡️ The Petitioner contends that even after factoring in the extended limitation period under Notification 56/2023, the SCN is still issued beyond the permissible time and thus is legally untenable.
➡️ The Department claims that the SCN was uploaded on May 31, 2024; however, the Petitioner disputes this by pointing out that certain supporting documents were generated on June 1, 2024, implying the SCN could not have been finalized earlier.
➡️ The High Court has scheduled the next hearing of the case for August 12, 2025, to further consider these issues.
✔️ Delhi HC – Indus Towers Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer [W.P.(C) 11262/2024]
🔥📛 HC: Quashes notice u/s 74 by ‘same officer’ who left notice u/s 73 undecided
➡️ The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST notice issued under Section 74 that was preceded by a notice under Section 73, both issued by the same officer.
➡️ The initial Section 73 notice alleged non-fraudulent discrepancies, and the assessee responded to it.
➡️ In the Section 73(9) order, the officer stated that due to lack of time, certain issues couldn’t be addressed and indicated a fresh notice would follow.
➡️ A subsequent notice under Section 74 (fraud category) was issued on the same matters, which the High Court found improper due to jurisdictional overreach.
➡️ Citing the Vadilal Enterprises case, the Court held that the fresh notice under Section 74 was invalid, but allowed the department to initiate fresh proceedings if done appropriately.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. State of UP & Anr. [WRIT TAX No. – 2527 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Echoing concerns about Revenue failing to follow its orders, directs implementation of its refund order
➡️ The Delhi High Court expressed displeasure with the Revenue Department for not implementing its previous order granting a refund to the assessee related to secondment of employees, despite clear directions.
➡️ The refund was originally granted by the HC based on its judgment in Metal One Corporation, where it interpreted CBIC Circular No. 210/4/2024-GST to mean that the market value for valuation under Rule 28 is NIL if no invoice is raised by the related domestic entity.
➡️ The assessee’s case involved similar facts, where no invoice was raised by the domestic entity to its foreign affiliate, and thus, based on the same reasoning as Metal One, the HC had ordered a refund earlier.
➡️ The Revenue refused to act on the HC’s earlier order, claiming the decision had not been accepted by the competent authority, even though no appeal was filed against that judgment.
➡️ The HC has now issued strict, time-bound directions to the Revenue to credit the refund to the assessee within two months.
✔️ Delhi HC – Thales India Private Limited. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of GST, Delhi [W.P.(C) 5563/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Allows taxpayer’s request for re-inspection of premises, directs to timely adjudicate registration-suspension
➡️ The Delhi High Court directed the GST Department to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice (SCN) for cancellation of GST registration within a strict timeline of 3 months.
➡️ The SCN proposed retrospective cancellation of registration on the basis that the firm was found to be non-operational during an investigation.
➡️ The Court observed that the assessee has the right to request a re-inspection of the business premises.
➡️ Such a re-inspection request can be submitted to the Adjudicating Authority handling the cancellation proceedings.
➡️ The writ petition was disposed of by the Court with directions for a time-bound adjudication and consideration of re-inspection if sought.
✔️ Delhi HC – Alfa Enterprises vs. The Principal Commissioner & Anr. [W.P.(C) 8149/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Directs Revenue to supply registration cancellation-order of traders passing on fraudulent ITC to Assessee
➡️ The Delhi High Court directed the Revenue Department to provide the GST registration cancellation orders of four dealers accused of passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the Assessee.
➡️ The Assessee had been denied ITC amounting to approximately ₹2.83 crores due to the cancellation of these dealers’ registrations.
➡️ The Court refused to quash the ITC denial order but allowed the Assessee to appeal the order effectively by obtaining the necessary cancellation documents.
➡️ The High Court emphasized that access to the cancellation orders is essential for the Assessee to pursue an appeal against the ITC denial.
➡️ The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Revenue to hand over the relevant cancellation orders to the Assessee for appellate recourse.
✔️ Delhi HC – Nehasach Impex Private Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Class II, Avato [W.P.(C) 7462/2025]
🔥📛 HC: No “express prohibition” under law to claim ITC-refund on business closure: Allows writ
➡️ The Sikkim High Court directed the refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately ₹4.37 crores to the assessee upon closure of its business.
➡️ The Court addressed whether ITC refunds under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act are restricted only to the situations outlined in Section 54(3), holding that refund is not limited solely to those cases.
➡️ Relying on the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., the Court observed that refund of ITC on closure of business is permissible, as there is no express bar in Sections 49(6) or 54(3).
➡️ The Court emphasized that even though Section 54(3) lists only two grounds for refund, the law does not permit retention of tax without proper legal authority.
➡️ It also rejected the Revenue’s argument that the writ petition was not maintainable due to an alternative remedy, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd..
✔️ Sikkim HC – SICPA India Private Limited and Another versus Union of India and Others [WP(C) No. 54 of 2023]
