LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 17.04.2025 – A2Z TAXCORP LLP

➡️ The Supreme   Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue   department against a judgment of the Delhi High Court.

➡️ The Delhi   High Court had ruled that a proper officer under Section 67(2) of the GST law   does not have the authority to seize valuable assets, currency, and bullion   during a search and seizure operation.

➡️ The basis for   the High Court’s ruling was that the mere presence of these items does not   automatically classify them as ‘unaccounted wealth’ under the law.

➡️ The Supreme   Court upheld this decision, stating that there was no case for interference   under its jurisdiction as per Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

✔️ SC – Commissioner   of CGST vs Deepak Khandelwal [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).   31886/2024]

➡️ The Delhi   High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an accountant challenging the   levy of penalties for alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment.   The court found no jurisdictional error warranting the exercise of writ   jurisdiction.

➡️ The GST   Department claimed that M/s Monga Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. wrongly availed   inadmissible ITC worth approximately Rs. 20 crores. Penalties were also   imposed on various firms that enabled this fraudulent ITC availment,   indicating a large-scale collusion among multiple entities and individuals.

➡️ The   petitioner, working as an accountant, argued that his role was limited to   generating sale invoices, e-way bills, maintaining purchase bills, and ledger   entries in Tally software. He claimed that as an accountant, he did not   benefit from the transactions and did not initiate them. However, the High   Court opined that his role could not be adjudicated separately from the other   entities and individuals involved.

➡️ The High   Court noted that the petitioner’s claim of not retaining any benefit from the   transactions was a factual issue that could not be examined under writ   jurisdiction. The petitioner was advised to raise this issue in an appeal.

➡️ The High   Court concluded that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of   the CGST Act. It directed the petitioner to avail of his remedies under this   section, acknowledging that the findings by the adjudicating authority of the   CGST Department indicated clear fraudulent availment of inadmissible ITC and   that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings against him and the related   entities.

✔️ Delhi HC – SUNIL   GULATI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE [W.P.(C)   4383/2025 & CM APPL. 20162/2025]

➡️ The Madras   High Court (HC) has set aside an assessment order of approximately Rs. 156.53   Crores against the Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. (IRFC) for the   Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

➡️ The HC held   that the assessment order was passed without proper application of mind and   in violation of the principles of natural justice. This violation occurred   because the demand was raised on a ground not included in the original Show   Cause Notice (SCN).

➡️ The SCN in   Form DRC-01 initially covered only one issue. However, the final assessment   order introduced a fresh issue related to the reversal of Input Tax Credit   (ITC) without any prior notice.

➡️ The IRFC   contended that they were deprived of an opportunity to respond to the new   issue of ITC reversal, as it was not part of the original SCN. The HC   observed that although the IRFC was granted a personal hearing, the second   issue was never proposed during the hearing.

➡️ The HC   concluded that the assessment order was beyond the scope of the SCN, as the   new issue was not addressed or proposed during the hearing process, rendering   the order invalid.

✔️ Madras HC – Indian   Railway Finance Corporation Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) [WP No. 8992   of 2025]

➡️ The assessee   received a notice under Section 61 of the GST law and filed a reply.

➡️ An order   under Section 73 was issued, deeming the reply unsatisfactory.

➡️ The assessee   applied for rectification of the order, but it was dismissed as there was no   valid justification provided.

➡️ The assessee   argued that the order was nonspeaking and was passed without a proper   hearing.

➡️ The court   held that the rectification application was vague and lacked specific   contentions, justifying its rejection, and dismissed the petition as there   were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

✔️ Allahabad HC   – Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. – 998 of 2025]

➡️ A university   was issued a show cause notice for allegedly collecting service tax on   affiliation fees. The university’s response led to the withdrawal of this   notice.

➡️ Later, the   university received an intimation under section 74(5) of the GST law,   demanding Rs. 1.90 crore in GST, interest, and penalty on affiliation   services.

➡️ The   university contested this demand, arguing that affiliation fees were exempted   supplies under GST laws and not subject to tax.

➡️ The   university’s activities, being non-commercial and regulatory in nature, did   not meet the definition of business under section 2(17) of the GST Act.

➡️ The court   held that the affiliation fees were not taxable under section 7 of the GST   Act, as they were statutory or regulatory fees, not contractual. The original   show cause notice was quashed due to the absence of jurisdictional facts.

✔️ Bombay HC – Goa   University v. Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax [WRIT   PETITION NO. 723 of 2024]