LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 12.06.2025
🔥📛 SCN cannot be quashed merely due to incorrect title where its content and subsequent reminders clarified intent: HC
➡️ The petitioner challenged the validity of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73 of the CGST Act, arguing that the title referred to it as a “Summary of Show Cause Notice” rather than a proper SCN.
➡️ The court held that an incorrect title or description does not invalidate the substance of the document if its intent and content are clear.
➡️ It was noted that the taxpayer’s dashboard and the document watermark clearly identified it as a notice under Section 73, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
➡️ Form DRC-01, being a statutory format, itself functions as a show cause notice, and the accompanying summary and departmental reminders reaffirmed this status.
➡️ Although the department was advised to avoid such misdescriptions in the future, the error was considered inadvertent and not grounds to quash the SCN.
✔️ Delhi HC – Pankaj Garg v. Sales Tax Officer [W.P.(C) No. 7414 of 2025]
🔥📛 Writ petition not maintainable as assessee is directed to file appeal against SCN and order by different authorities: HC
➡️ The assessee challenged an order-in-original raising demands and penalties for alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims, arguing procedural lapses such as different authorities issuing the SCN and order, and a consolidated notice covering multiple financial years.
➡️ The court held that such procedural objections could be appropriately addressed through the appellate mechanism rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.
➡️ It emphasized that in cases involving fraudulent ITC claims, the writ remedy should generally not be exercised due to the serious impact on the exchequer and the integrity of the GST system.
➡️ The court noted that allowing the writ in such cases would undermine the statutory appeal process, especially where fraud is alleged.
➡️ It was further clarified that any decision passed in the connected matter of Quest Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India would also apply to future appellate proceedings if the assessee pursued the appeal route.
✔️ Delhi HC – Mahavir Metal House v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi North [W.P.(C) No. 8280 of 2025]
🔥📛 Notice issued u/s 74 in identical circumstances to be quashed following precedent where officer left issues undecided u/s 73: HC
➡️ A show cause notice (SCN) was issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, which deals with cases involving fraud or willful misstatement, but the petitioner argued that the essential conditions for invoking Section 74 were missing.
➡️ The petitioner contended that the notice lacked jurisdiction because it did not contain any of the mandatory ingredients necessary to trigger action under Section 74.
➡️ The matter was found to be directly covered by a previous judgment in M/s Vadilal Enterprises Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2025] where a similar issue was considered.
➡️ In that precedent, the same officer had shifted from Section 73 to Section 74 due to time constraints without establishing the necessary conditions required under Section 74.
➡️ It was held that since there was no proper basis for invoking Section 74, the notice was issued without jurisdiction and was therefore quashed and set aside.
✔️ Allahabad HC – Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. 2527 of 2025]
🔥📛 Writ not maintainable as petitioner can contest issues by replying to SCNs issued by DGGI and Income Tax Department: HC
➡️ The petitioner-firm challenged the seizure of cash during a search at a residential premises, claiming the GST Department lacked authority under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act to seize cash.
➡️ A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) in connection with the seizure.
➡️ Separately, a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was also issued by the Income Tax Department.
➡️ Given that both departments had initiated independent proceedings and the seizure occurred about a year earlier, the petitioner was advised to respond to the respective SCNs through proper channels.
➡️ The High Court held that no interference was warranted in the ongoing departmental proceedings through a writ petition at this stage.
✔️ Delhi HC – N.P. Industries v. Union of India [W.P.(C) Nos. 8053 & 8332 of 2025]
🔥📛 Single appeal allowed against composite order involving wrongful ITC through good-less invoices: HC
➡️ A common Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the assessee for wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims based on invoices without actual goods movement, covering financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20.
➡️ The department passed a single impugned order raising demands for all three years based on the common SCN.
➡️ The assessee argued that filing separate appeals for each financial year would be burdensome and unjust, as both the SCN and the order were common.
➡️ The legal issue was whether the assessee must file three separate appeals or could file one consolidated appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act.
➡️ It was held that since both the SCN and the impugned order were common, the assessee should be allowed to file a single consolidated appeal before the Appellate Authority.
✔️ Delhi HC – Delhi Foils v. Additional Commissioner [W.P.(C) Nos. 7626 and 7676 of 2025]
🔥📛 Assessee to be relegated to Appellate Authority as reversal and utilization of ITC were same demand but separately raised in order: HC
➡️ The assessee, who runs a sweetmeat shop and a restaurant, received a show cause notice (SCN) alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), as GST on restaurants is 5% without ITC, while higher rates apply to sweetmeats with ITC eligibility.
➡️ The assessee contended that ITC was lawfully availed for the sweetmeat shop portion, where ITC is permitted, making the SCN untenable.
➡️ The impugned order raised a double demand: once by reversing the ITC availed and again by treating the same ITC as utilised, effectively demanding the same amount twice.
➡️ The petitioner highlighted that this duplication—reversal and disallowance of the same ITC—amounted to an unfair double recovery for the same tax period.
➡️ The Court observed prima facie that both demands referred to the same ITC and appeared duplicative, thus directing the assessee to approach the Appellate Authority for redressal.
✔️ Delhi HC – Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi-West [W.P.(C) No. 8028 of 2025]
