LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 14.10.2025
🔥📛 SC grants interim stay on Rs. 780 cr. demand against Nirdesa Games; Tags with Gameskraft batch
➡️ The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on further proceedings pursuant to a show cause notice (SCN) issued by DGGI, Karnataka, demanding approximately ₹780 crores from Nirdesa Networks Pvt. Ltd., an online gaming intermediary.
➡️ The Court noted that the core issue—whether online skill-based gaming constitutes “betting” or “actionable claim” under GST—has already been reserved for judgment in the Gameskraft batch (SLP(C) Nos. 19366-19369/2023 and connected cases). Hence, adjudication on the SCN would be premature.
➡️ The Assessee contended that Rule 31A(3), invoked by the Department, applies only to betting and gambling and not to skill-based games. Therefore, the SCN suffers from jurisdictional errors and misclassification of the supply.
➡️ It was argued that Section 15(5) of the CGST Act, which allows valuation to be prescribed by rules, violates Article 246A and the concept of “transaction value” under Section 15(1), rendering the SCN constitutionally infirm.
➡️ Recognizing the overlapping issues, the Supreme Court directed that Nirdesa’s writ petition be tagged with the Gameskraft batch and ordered that no further proceedings be taken on the impugned SCN until the Court’s final judgment on the main matter.
✔️ SC – Nirdesa Networks Private Limited v Union of India & Ors [Writ Petition(Civil) No.923/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine vires of circulars withdrawing exemption on education affiliation services
➡️ The Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) has filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging CBIC Circulars No. 151/07/2021-GST and 234/28/2024-GST, which withdraw GST exemption on affiliation and related educational services earlier covered under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
➡️ The Court noted Bombay High Court (Goa University case) and Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru North University case) decisions, both of which held the impugned circulars ultra vires the exemption notification, ruling that affiliation fees charged by educational boards/universities remain exempt from GST.
➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the Karnataka High Court judgment in Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, thereby affirming the view that affiliation and related services qualify for GST exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification.
➡️ Upon examining these precedents, the Delhi High Court observed prima facie that the impugned CBIC circulars (dated 17 June 2021 and 11 October 2024) cannot be relied upon by the department to raise GST demands against CISCE, aligning with the reasoning of the earlier High Court rulings.
➡️ The Court issued notice to the respondents and has listed the matter for further hearing on December 18, 2025, while granting interim protection to CISCE from GST demands based on the impugned circulars.
✔️ Delhi HC – Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) v. Union of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 14532/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi-HC protects GAIL from coercive action in corporate guarantee issue; Tags with similar matters
➡️ The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to GAIL India Ltd., restraining the Revenue from taking any coercive action pursuant to a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, which proposed GST demand on corporate guarantees furnished by the company for its JV/subsidiary.
➡️ While allowing adjudication proceedings to continue, the Court directed that no final order shall be given effect to until the matter is finally decided, thus safeguarding the assessee against any immediate adverse consequences.
➡️ GAIL contended that the Adjudicating Authority (Addl./Joint Commissioner, Delhi South) lacked jurisdiction to issue the SCN, citing Table V of Notification No. 2/2017–Central Tax (June 19, 2017), which vests such adjudicatory powers with the Principal Commissioner, Delhi North, and Commissioner, Delhi West.
➡️ The Revenue submitted documents asserting the authority’s jurisdiction; however, the Court observed that both the jurisdictional question and the substantive issue of GST levy on corporate guarantees are already under consideration in a batch of pending matters before the same Bench.
➡️ The Court directed that GAIL’s petition be heard along with related cases, including W.P.(C) 14622/2024 (Jindal Stainless Hisar Ltd. / Jindal Stainless Ltd.), and listed the matter on November 11, 2025, indicating that the issue of GST applicability on corporate guarantees remains sub judice before the Delhi High Court.
✔️ Delhi HC – Gail India Limited vs UOI & ors [W.P.(C) 13358/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Time between IGST-refund application filing till deficiency excludable for two-year limitation computation
➡️ The Court held that a refund application re-filed pursuant to a deficiency memo (Form GST RFD-03) is a continuation of the original proceedings, not a fresh cause of action. Therefore, such rectified applications are to be treated as part of the same refund process.
➡️ Interpreting “relevant date” under the Explanation to Section 54(14) of the CGST Act, the Court ruled that the period between filing the original refund claim and the communication of deficiency must be excluded when computing the two-year limitation for any rectified refund claim.
➡️ Following the precedent in La-Gajjar Machineries Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that the issuance of a deficiency memo does not extinguish the taxpayer’s right to refund; it merely allows correction and resubmission without attracting limitation.
➡️ The assessee, operating under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme, claimed ₹83.51 lakh IGST refund on deemed export of capital goods procured domestically. Multiple rectified refund applications were filed after deficiency memos, leading to dispute over limitation and validity.
➡️ The Gujarat High Court quashed the rejection of the third rectified refund claim and restored it for fresh adjudication on merits. It emphasized that procedural lapses or repeated rectifications cannot defeat a genuine refund claim made within the permissible timeline once deficiency-related exclusions are considered.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Varidhi Cotspin Private Limited vs. UOI & Ors. [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3595 of 2024]
🔥📛 HC: Permanent registration-cancellation for procedural-lapse is disproportionate given amends by taxpayer, CSR contribution
➡️ The Bombay High Court restored the assessee’s cancelled GST registration, recognizing that the assessee had subsequently discharged all tax dues, interest, and late fees — thereby demonstrating bona fide compliance efforts.
➡️ The Court applied the doctrine of proportionality, observing that permanent cancellation of GST registration solely for past non-filing or delayed payment is excessive when the taxpayer has rectified defaults and resumed compliance.
➡️ The Court held that restoring registration serves both the assessee and the Revenue, as continued business activity ensures ongoing GST collection and adherence to the tax framework.
➡️ The HC took into account the assessee’s reasons for earlier non-compliance and noted that subsequent corrective measures, including voluntary payments even under CSR obligations, indicated intent to comply rather than evade.
➡️ Citing earlier precedents, the Court reaffirmed that cancellation orders should not be punitive where taxpayers have made amends. Restoration should be favored when it promotes tax recovery and future compliance, subject to adherence to statutory conditions.
✔️ Bombay HC – Azaria Corp LLP vs. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax [WRIT PETITION NO. 443 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: FIRCs can be periodically, quashes demand, denial of ITC and remands for fresh-consideration
➡️ The CGST Department reversed the petitioner’s Input Tax Credit (ITC) and issued a demand order on the ground that foreign remittance proofs—such as BRCs or FIRCs—were not furnished to substantiate export proceeds for 2017–18 to 2021–22.
➡️ Authorities contended that lump-sum INR credits in the petitioner’s bank account from its foreign branch did not correspond invoice-wise, month-wise, or year-wise with export transactions, implying a lack of corroboration for export realization.
➡️ The petitioner argued that during the audit period, it had regularly claimed GST refunds and provided the requisite documentation, which the Revenue had accepted and sanctioned—therefore, no shortfall or irregularity in foreign exchange realization existed.
➡️ The Delhi HC held that FIRCs/BRCs need not match each export invoice individually; they may be periodic or consolidated, provided that the total export proceeds claimed are fully supported by foreign exchange remitted to the assessee.
➡️ Finding the earlier proceedings procedurally deficient, the Court set aside the demand and ITC appropriation orders, and directed the Revenue to reconsider the matter afresh by issuing a new personal hearing notice and adjudicating the show cause notice accordingly.
✔️ Delhi HC – Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Delhi East & Anr. [W.P.(C) 4987/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Revokes registration-cancellation subject to undertaking over regular, timely compliance
➡️ The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition challenging cancellation of GST registration, noting that the assessee had already deposited a substantial portion of outstanding tax, interest, and late fees as if the returns had been duly filed.
➡️ The Court acknowledged the assessee’s repeated defaults in filing GST returns since 2019 and multiple cancellation proceedings but accepted the explanation citing a partner’s medical condition as a mitigating factor.
➡️ The petitioner was expressly permitted to file all pending returns, with a direction to the Revenue to accept and process them for determining the actual tax liability.
➡️ The Court mandated that the assessee furnish an undertaking to ensure timely filing of returns in the future, warning that any subsequent default would result in automatic cancellation of registration.
➡️ The department was directed to compute the outstanding liability after adjusting previously deposited amounts and, upon full clearance of dues, revoke the cancellation and restore the registration accordingly.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Wadiwala Automobiles Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7016 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Quashes appellate order on hyper-technical ground of non-receipt of certified copies
➡️ The High Court held that the Appellate Authority’s order dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-receipt of certified copies was hyper-technical. It emphasized that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice, particularly when the taxpayer deserves an opportunity of hearing.
➡️ The Court underscored that denying a hearing to the assessee on technical grounds violates principles of natural justice. Authorities must ensure fair adjudication rather than relying solely on procedural defaults.
➡️ The Court noted the petitioner’s contention that a 100% penalty is not leviable under Section 73 (which deals with non-fraud cases). It observed that a mechanical or excessive penalty without proper basis cannot be sustained in law.
➡️ The HC found that the assessee’s appeal—against the order in DRC-07, issued after a show cause notice and summary in DRC-01—was filed within the prescribed time limit. Hence, rejection on limitation grounds was unjustified.
➡️ Setting aside the Appellate Authority’s order, the Court remanded the matter for reconsideration and directed that the appeal be disposed of expeditiously within a stipulated time frame.
✔️ Jharkhand HC – Sanjeet Kumar Bhagat vs. Commissioner of State Tax [W.P.(T) No.6468 of 2022]
🔥📛 HC: Printing books, newspapers, wedding cards, photos from customer content taxable at 18% as services
➡️ The Kerala High Court held that printing of materials such as books, brochures, magazines, wedding cards, posters, etc., based on content provided by customers using the printer’s own paper, ink, and machinery, constitutes a service activity classifiable under SAC 998386 – “Photographic and videographic processing services”, and not as goods under HSN 4911.
➡️ The Court clarified that when the printer provides content (i.e., owns and supplies the printed material), it amounts to supply of goods under HSN 4911. However, when the customer furnishes the content and the printer merely reproduces it, it amounts to supply of services, as no transfer of title in goods occurs.
➡️ The Court emphasized that digital printing, even through offset presses, falls within the ambit of SCN 998386, since it involves digital media processes where the customer retains ownership of the content, and the printer merely renders a reproduction service using his materials.
➡️ Although some goods (like paper and ink) are involved, the dominant component of the transaction is the printing service. The supply of paper is only ancillary, and therefore, the entire supply must be taxed as a service, attracting 18% GST.
➡️ The Court upheld the Kerala AAR ruling in Colortone Process, which taxed similar digital printing services at 18%, and dismissed the assessees’ petitions challenging assessment under Section 74. Nonetheless, it allowed assessees to pursue statutory appellate remedies, excluding the writ pendency period from limitation.
✔️ Kerala HC – Stark Photo Book Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) [WP(C) NO. 16709 OF 2024]
🔥📛 SC: Dismisses SLP challenging GSTAT re-interview process; Upholds Search-cum-Selection Committee’s authority to reconstitute
➡️ The petitioner contested the reconstitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) and the initiation of a fresh interview process for the appointment of Judicial Members to the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), arguing that once shortlisting was completed, the Committee lacked authority to restart the process.
➡️ The Orissa High Court held that the SCSC possesses the discretion to recommence the selection process de novo if it deems necessary, finding no statutory bar against such action under the governing framework for GSTAT appointments.
➡️ The reconstitution of the Committee and the decision to restart the process were linked to confidential Intelligence Bureau inputs concerning the suitability of certain candidates, including the petitioner, thereby justifying administrative reconsideration.
➡️ The Supreme Court, upon examining the record, found no ground for interference with the High Court’s order, affirming that the SCSC acted within its legal competence in reinitiating the selection procedure.
➡️ The ruling clarifies that the Search-cum-Selection Committee retains full authority to re-evaluate and restart the selection process for GSTAT members when justified by administrative or suitability considerations, reinforcing procedural flexibility and due diligence in appointments.
✔️ SC – Pranaya Kishore Harichandan vs UOI & ors [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28136/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Fixing date for petroleum inclusion in GST within Council’s policy domain; Refuses mandamus
➡️ The Court held that it cannot compel the GST Council to fix a date for considering the inclusion of petrol and diesel under GST, as such decisions lie entirely within the Council’s policy prerogative and not within judicial jurisdiction.
➡️ The Court clarified that no statutory or constitutional right exists for any citizen to demand inclusion of petroleum products under GST; hence, no writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce such an action.
➡️ Referring to the 45th GST Council meeting, the Court noted that the Council had validly decided it was not an appropriate time to bring petroleum products under GST, and judicial interference in such a policy determination is unwarranted.
➡️ The petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Aeltemesh Rein judgment was rejected, with the Court emphasizing that the SC’s mandamus in that case enforced an existing statutory right, whereas the present issue pertains solely to a discretionary policy matter.
➡️ Concluding that the issue falls within the exclusive domain of the GST Council, the Kerala High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismissed all related writ petitions.
✔️ Kerala HC – P. K. Joseph Vs UOI & ors [WP(C) NO. 15055 OF 2021]
