LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 13.06.2025
🔥📛 Bombay HC to examine category of demand, penalty for wrong ITC claim
➡️ The Bombay High Court is hearing a petition by an importer of polyester recycled yarn challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) related to alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims based on fake invoices.
➡️ The Court has issued a direction that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner based on the SCN or the impugned order until further notice.
➡️ The petitioner cited CBIC Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST to argue the classification of ITC claims involving fake invoices and their relevance for creating tax demand and imposing penalties.
➡️ The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s arguments and also noted the existence of seven other related proceedings involving the petitioner.
➡️ The Union of India has been granted time until June 11 to file its reply in the matter.
✔️ 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
➡️ In the Indus Towers case, the Delhi High Court is examining the validity of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued allegedly beyond the prescribed time limit, even after considering extensions provided by Notification No. 09/2023 and 56/2023.
➡️ The Court has directed the Department to file a short affidavit clarifying when the SCN was actually issued as per the CGST Act and whether it falls within the limitation period.
➡️ The Petitioner argues that the SCN is time-barred despite the extended limitation period under Notification 56/2023.
➡️ The Revenue claims the SCN was uploaded on May 31, 2024, but the Petitioner counters this, stating that some supporting documents are dated June 1, 2024, suggesting the SCN could not have been issued on May 31, 2024.
➡️ The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on August 12, 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Indus Towers Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer [W.P.(C) 11262/2024]
🔥📛 HC: CBIC’s direction mandating DIN inapplicable to State Tax Officer sans corresponding SGST-Circular
➡️ The Gujarat High Court held that the CBIC Circular No. 37/2019, which mandates the use of Document Identification Number (DIN), applies only to Central tax authorities and not to State Tax Officers under the SGST Act, as it is not addressed to State Commissioners and both CGST and SGST function under separate legal frameworks.
➡️ The Court observed that there is no system or mechanism in place for the issuance of DIN by State GST authorities, and hence the absence of a DIN in summons or notices issued by State Officers does not invalidate them.
➡️ After a search under Section 67 of the CGST Act, the authorities blocked the Input Tax Credit (ITC) and provisionally attached the assessee’s sundry debtors, also issuing summons for production of books of accounts.
➡️ The assessee’s challenge on the ground that the provisional attachment was passed by an Assistant Commissioner instead of the Commissioner was rejected, with the Court affirming that the Commissioner of State Tax is a proper officer under Section 2(91) and is empowered to delegate such functions.
➡️ Referring to principles of administrative law, the Court upheld the delegation of powers and disposed of the writ petition, directing the assessee to raise transaction-specific objections (like ‘Bill-to-Ship-to’) through appropriate applications.
✔️ Gujarat HC – NRM Metals (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors. [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4910 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Non-responsiveness to reminder notices and merely passing ex-parte order not effective service
➡️ The Madras High Court ruled that merely uploading show cause notices and reminders on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab does not constitute valid service if no effort is made to serve them directly to the assessee.
➡️ The assessee argued that it could not participate in the assessment proceedings for AY 2019–2020 because it never received the show cause notice or assessment order through personal delivery or registered post.
➡️ The Court observed that the assessment order was passed without giving the assessee a chance for a personal hearing, which violated principles of natural justice.
➡️ It emphasized that GST officers must apply their minds and consider other modes of service to ensure proper and effective communication, rather than just completing formalities on the portal.
➡️ Granting relief, the Court disposed of the writ petition and gave the assessee one final opportunity to pay 25% of the disputed tax to contest the matter further.
✔️ Madras HC – Ideal Polypet vs. The State Tax Officer [WP No. 18706 of 2025]
🔥📛 Review petition to be dismissed as digitally signed cancellation order clearly displayed officer’s name and designation: HC
➡️ The assessee applied for cancellation of GST registration, but the department issued a show cause notice almost a year later, suspending registration from the notice date and later passed a cancellation order.
➡️ The assessee challenged this in a writ petition, where the High Court considered whether the delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act could be condoned.
➡️ Subsequently, the assessee filed a review petition, arguing that the court did not consider other grounds raised in the original writ petition, particularly that the cancellation order lacked the proper officer’s signature.
➡️ The court noted that although there was no physical signature, the name, designation, and ward number of the officer were clearly mentioned in the cancellation order.
➡️ It held that there was no apparent error in the record or in merit, and therefore, the review petition was dismissed.
✔️ Delhi HC – Aditya Madaan v. Commissioner CGST GST Commissionerate Delhi [W.P. (C) No. 5650 of 2024]
🔥📛 Writ petition against fraudulent ITC claim not maintainable as appellate remedy available: HC
➡️ The assessee operated two units—one in Delhi and one in Gurgaon—and was accused of fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on mismatches between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B for the FYs 2017–18 and 2018–19.
➡️ The tax officer held that ITC was availed through bogus transactions involving a supplier named Fortune Graphics, and issued a detailed summary order explaining the fraudulent mechanism used.
➡️ The assessee challenged the order through a writ petition, arguing that its Delhi unit had not availed any ITC during the disputed period.
➡️ The court ruled that in cases involving fraudulent ITC claims, writ jurisdiction is not appropriate, particularly where principles of natural justice were followed.
➡️ Determining which unit availed the ITC and assessing the overall impact required examination of factual details and documents, which must be addressed through the appellate mechanism rather than a writ petition.
✔️ Delhi HC – VAB Apparel LLP v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication (DGGSTI) [W.P. (C) No. 7195 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC directs assessee to present Form DRC-03A for treating investigation deposit as pre-deposit for appeal
➡️ The assessee filed an appeal against an order alleging wrongful availment of input tax credit and claimed that no separate pre-deposit was needed as Rs. 27.4 lakh had already been deposited during the investigation.
➡️ The assessee sought credit for this earlier deposit by submitting Form DRC-03A at the time of filing the appeal.
➡️ The GST department had introduced Form DRC-03A specifically to allow assessees to utilize past deposits made during investigation for appeal-related pre-deposit requirements.
➡️ To use this provision, the assessee must appear before the Adjudicating Authority and present Form DRC-03A for verification.
➡️ Once the Adjudicating Authority confirms the deposit via Form DRC-03A, it can be officially recognized and applied toward the mandatory pre-deposit for filing the appeal.
✔️ Delhi HC – AB Players Exports (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West [W.P.(C) No. 6683 of 2025]
🔥📛 Pre-deposit required only for amount in first order as it included liability mentioned in second order: HC
➡️ Two separate Orders-in-Original were issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner, imposing a combined GST demand of ₹81.41 lakh on the assessee.
➡️ The assessee argued that ₹17.10 lakh was duplicated in both orders, as the demand pertained to the same entity, M/s Caretech Systems.
➡️ The assessee sought relief from making duplicate pre-deposits while filing appeals against both orders.
➡️ The court allowed the assessee to file two appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
➡️ It was held that the mandatory pre-deposit was to be made only once, based on the total amount of the first Order-in-Original (₹64.31 lakh + ₹17.10 lakh), and no pre-deposit was required for the duplicated amount in the second order.
✔️ Delhi HC – Amit Gupta v. Principal Commissioner, CGST Delhi North [W.P.(C) No. 6937 of 2025]
