LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 11.11.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine audit lapses before issuing notice involving ‘fruit mixture’ re-classification
➡️ The case concerns the classification of “fruit mixture” — whether it falls under HSN 2008 97 00 (12% GST) as claimed by the assessee, or under HSN 2106 90 70 (18% GST) as proposed by the Revenue, which covers miscellaneous edible preparations.
➡️ The assessee contested the SCN issued pursuant to an audit report, arguing that the audit report was prepared without considering the annexures submitted along with their detailed reply to the audit memo. Subsequent departmental communications seeking those annexures supported this contention.
➡️ The High Court observed that the Revenue’s communications after finalization of the audit report indicated that the SCN might have been issued without due consideration of material evidence, which raises a serious procedural concern affecting the validity of the proceedings.
➡️ The assessee’s argument that the audit was time-barred under Section 65 of the CGST Act was rejected. The Court held that the audit report was issued within the prescribed timeline, relying on its earlier ruling in Varian Medical Systems International India Pvt. Ltd.
➡️ While directing the Revenue to file a counter affidavit within four weeks, the Court allowed the department to pass an order on the SCN but clarified that such order shall not be given effect to until the next date of hearing, thereby preserving the assessee’s rights pending final adjudication.
✔️ Delhi HC – Hind Agro Sales vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit-I & Ors. [W.P.(C) 16744/2025]
🔥📛 Bombay HC to examine divergent views on the issue of consolidating show-cause-notices for multiple years
➡️ HMM Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a show cause notice (SCN) that clubbed alleged GST/Service Tax demands for multiple financial years into a single notice.
➡️ The assessee contended that consolidating multiple years in one SCN is legally impermissible, citing the Milroc Good Earth Developers decision where such practice was held to amount to judicial overreach and procedural irregularity.
➡️ The Department countered by referring to the RioCare India Pvt. Ltd. ruling, where a coordinate bench upheld the validity of a consolidated SCN, asserting that this position has since been consistently followed in later cases.
➡️ The Court observed that conflicting judicial opinions exist on whether multiple-year tax periods can be combined within one SCN, creating uncertainty on the procedural validity of such consolidation under indirect tax law.
➡️ Acknowledging the divergence, the Court directed both parties to file compilations of supporting precedents to determine (a) whether the issue is covered by existing judgments and (b) whether a writ petition against a mere SCN is maintainable. The matter is listed for further hearing on December 2, 2025.
✔️ Bombay HC – HMM Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 2021 OF 2025]
🔥📛 SC stays Rs. 123 crore GST notice to Baazi Games, citing pending Gameskraft judgment
➡️ The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on further proceedings arising from the ₹123 crore GST show cause notice (SCN) issued to Baazi Games Pvt. Ltd., noting that the broader issue of taxability of online gaming and “actionable claims” is already pending adjudication in the Gameskraft matter, where judgment has been reserved.
➡️ The assessee argued that Rule 31A(3)—which treats betting, gambling, and similar actionable claims as taxable supplies—is constitutionally invalid, as it contradicts Section 15(1) (which bases valuation on “transaction value”) and exceeds delegated rule-making powers.
➡️ It was contended that Section 15(5) itself suffers from constitutional infirmity, being inconsistent with Article 246A (exclusive taxing power of the legislature) and Section 15(1), thereby undermining the legislative framework for determining transaction value under GST.
➡️ Baazi Games maintained that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to invoke Rule 31A(3) since the underlying transaction—online gaming—is already sub judice before the Supreme Court, and the parameters for invoking the rule were not satisfied in this case.
➡️ Recognizing that the Gameskraft judgment (on identical issues) has been reserved since August 12, 2025, the Court held that proceeding with Baazi’s adjudication would be premature and futile, and therefore ordered that “all further proceedings of the impugned SCN shall remain stayed” until the final decision.
✔️ SC – Baazi Games Private Limited v Union of India & Ors [Writ Petition(Civil) No. 1032/2025]
🔥📛 SC: Upholds High Court’s view that emails to GST Practitioner constitute valid service
➡️ The Supreme Court upheld that service of personal hearing notices sent to the registered e-mail address appearing on the GST portal — even if it reflects the GST Practitioner or Chartered Accountant’s email — constitutes valid communication under Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act.
➡️ The Delhi High Court had rightly concluded that there was no breach of natural justice, as the assessee received the notices on the registered email. The assessee’s concealment of this fact was noted adversely.
➡️ The High Court’s view that consolidated SCNs covering multiple financial years are legally permissible was upheld. Such consolidation was found necessary to illustrate a pattern of alleged tax evasion.
➡️ The Apex Court found “no good ground or reason” to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s judgment, thereby confirming the validity of the notices and the procedure followed by the tax authorities.
➡️ The Supreme Court dismissed the assessee’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) and maintained the ₹50,000 cost imposed by the Delhi High Court, reinforcing the finality of the order and emphasizing compliance with procedural norms in GST proceedings.
✔️ SC – Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 50279/2025]
🔥📛 GST summons held redundant as jurisdiction shifted to Centre and records transferred after interdepartmental consensus: HC
➡️ The petitioner company challenged multiple summons issued by the DGGI (respondent No. 2) for FY 2019-20 to 2024-25, alleging duplication of investigation since the State GST authorities had already initiated inquiry on the same subject matter.
➡️ Minutes of a joint meeting between the DGGI Udaipur Regional Unit and State Taxes & Excise, Central Zone Una, recorded an agreement that the investigation would be handled exclusively by the State authority.
➡️ It was noted that the taxpayer fell under the Barotiwala Circle within Revenue District BBN at Baddi, which—after restructuring—fell under the administrative jurisdiction of Central Zone Una for State GST purposes.
➡️ The State authority had commenced an inquiry (Case ID AD0201230011273) concerning input tax credit for the same period, and DGGI confirmed that no further investigation would be pursued by its officers.
➡️ Given the clear inter-departmental understanding and cessation of DGGI’s role, the court held that the DGGI summons had become redundant and unenforceable, thereby disposing of the writ petition accordingly.
✔️ Himachal Pradesh HC – Prime Steel Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh [CWP No. 15418 of 2024]
🔥📛 Ex-parte order under sec. 73 for excess ITC set aside as petitioner had bona fide reasons for non-reply: HC
➡️ The case involved a demand under Section 73 of the CGST Act, relating to alleged excess availment of ITC without any allegation of fraud or willful misstatement.
➡️ The department initially issued a pre-intimation notice in Form GST ASMT-10, to which the petitioner duly responded. Subsequently, a show-cause notice under Section 73 was issued, but the petitioner failed to file a reply.
➡️ Owing to the petitioner’s non-response, the adjudicating authority passed an ex parte order under Section 73(9), confirming demand for tax, interest, and penalty.
➡️ The Court observed that although the petitioner did not respond to the show-cause notice, there existed bona fide reasons and sufficient cause for such omission, warranting a justice-oriented approach.
➡️ The Court set aside the ex parte order and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the case from the stage of reply submission, directing that a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing be provided before passing any fresh order.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Jothi Polymers (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [WRIT PETITION NO. 26842 OF 2025 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 Limitation for GST appeal runs from actual communication date as portal glitch delayed order visibility: HC
➡️ The dispute centered on when the rectification order dated 01.08.2024 was “communicated” to the taxpayer for the purpose of computing the appeal limitation period.
➡️ Although the order was uploaded on the GST portal on 01.08.2024, it was not visible to the petitioner due to a portal malfunction. The authorities admitted this fact and confirmed that the order was first effectively communicated via email on 13.11.2024.
➡️ The petitioner filed the appeal on 08.01.2025, within 90 days from 13.11.2024 and within the further condonable period of 30 days permitted under the GST law.
➡️ The first appellate authority erred in reckoning the limitation period from 01.08.2024 and in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, ignoring that actual communication occurred only on 13.11.2024.
➡️ The court held that limitation begins from the date of actual communication or knowledge of the order, not merely its upload date. The impugned rejection order was quashed, and the matter remanded for decision on merits.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Keva Fragrances (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11799 of 2025]
