LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 17.10.2025
🔥📛 Bombay HC stays GST on royalty for mining lease, cites pendency before Supreme Court
➡️ The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) granted interim relief to Rushiraj Infra, staying the payment of GST on royalty paid for minor mineral mining leases.
➡️ The Court followed the Supreme Court’s interim order in Lakhwinder Singh v. Union of India, where similar relief was granted by staying GST liability on royalty for mining rights.
➡️ The Court noted that the Supreme Court had earlier stayed the levy of service tax on royalty payments, reinforcing consistency in judicial approach toward taxation of mining royalties.
➡️ Recognizing that similar interim reliefs had been granted in connected matters by the same High Court, it found no justification to deviate from its established view.
➡️ The stay on GST payment for mining lease/royalty will continue until further orders. The matter has been listed for detailed hearing after Diwali for further consideration.
✔️ Bombay HC – Rushiraj Infra v. Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 6135 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: GST Act, being a special Act, prohibits disclosing company’s returns under RTI Act
➡️ The Court held that the GST Act, being a special and later enactment, prevails over the RTI Act regarding disclosure of information. Hence, data prohibited from disclosure under Section 158 of the GST Act cannot be shared under the RTI framework.
➡️ The Court clarified that GST returns of companies/firms constitute third-party information, protected by Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j), and 11 of the RTI Act. Any request for such data requires third-party notice and consideration of confidentiality before disclosure.
➡️ The petitioner’s general allegations of fraud were found bald and unsupported. The Court emphasized that disclosure of third-party tax data under RTI is permissible only when larger public interest is clearly established, not merely alleged.
➡️ Relying on the Supreme Court’s view in Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Court reiterated that third-party commercial and financial information is inherently confidential, and RTI officers must protect such data unless overriding public interest demands otherwise.
➡️ Finding no evidence of public interest or procedural lapse, the Court upheld the orders of the Information Officer, Appellate Authority, and State Information Commissioner rejecting the RTI application. The judgment reinforces that GST return data cannot be accessed through RTI mechanisms except in exceptional, justified circumstances.
✔️ Bombay HC – Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare vs The State of Maharashtra [WRIT PETITION NO. 11135 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Necessary documents admissible before Appellate Authority despite non-production at Adjudicating stage
➡️ The Kerala High Court held that under Rule 112(1)(c) of the CGST Rules, an appellant may produce new evidence before the appellate authority if prevented by sufficient cause from producing it before the adjudicating authority.
➡️ The Court recognized that the assessee’s failure to furnish documents before the Deputy Commissioner (SGST) was due to the voluminous nature of transactions and the short time granted for compliance—constituting a valid and sufficient cause under Rule 112(1)(c).
➡️ Emphasizing the objective of GST adjudication, the Court observed that the process aims at determining the correct tax liability, not penalizing taxpayers or recovering tax that is not legally due.
➡️ The Court clarified that appellate proceedings are not adversarial but a continuation of the original assessment process. Therefore, the appellate authority is empowered—and expected—to examine new evidence relevant to determining the correct tax liability.
➡️ Setting aside the appellate authority’s rejection of the rectification plea, the High Court directed it to reconsider the appeal on merits, accept the additional documents, and adjudicate afresh, aligning with principles of natural justice and substantive fairness.
✔️ Kerala HC – U.S. Technology International Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. [WP(C) NO. 14760 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Tax paying unregistered partnership-firm can challenge GST demand, Partnership Act imposes no bar
➡️ The Delhi High Court held that a writ petition filed by an unregistered partnership firm under GST law is maintainable, particularly when a partner is also impleaded as a co-petitioner.
➡️ The Court clarified that Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 does not bar proceedings by an unregistered firm when the action seeks to enforce statutory or common law rights, as opposed to contractual rights.
➡️ Despite being unregistered, the firm held GST registration and paid taxes. Hence, the Court ruled that such an assessee cannot be denied enforcement of statutory rights or remedies against the Department.
➡️ The Court relied on Haldiram Bhujiawala v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and Shiv Developers v. Aksharay Developers, reinforcing that unregistered firms may pursue statutory claims and are not barred from litigation on that ground.
➡️ The HC directed the assessee to file an appeal with the requisite pre-deposit, condoned the delay, and made the matter subject to the outcome of the Sarens Heavy Lift India Pvt. Ltd. proceedings—where the validity of Notification No. 40/2021-Central Tax is under challenge.
✔️ Delhi HC – Amit Kumar Basau & Anr. Versus Sales Tax Officer Class II AVATO Ward 13 (Special Zone) Zone 12, Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(C) 15327/2025]
🔥📛 Composite SCN or order for multiple tax periods impermissible as it prejudices taxpayer rights: HC
➡️ The Court held that issuing a single show cause notice or composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods or financial years is not permissible under the GST law.
➡️ Each assessment year or tax period must be adjudicated independently, as clubbing multiple periods together violates the statutory framework for adjudication and assessment under the GST regime.
➡️ A composite order adversely affects the taxpayer’s right to appeal (Section 107) and the right to seek waiver of penalty or relief under Section 128, since these remedies are exercised period-wise.
➡️ The petitioners also challenged the orders for being unsigned and lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN), reinforcing that procedural compliance is a mandatory requirement for the validity of assessment orders.
➡️ The Court set aside the impugned composite orders while granting liberty to the tax authorities to initiate fresh, separate proceedings for each assessment year in accordance with law.
✔️ Andhra Pradesh HC – S J Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner [W.P. Nos. 11028, 11206, 17671 and 20792 of 2025]
🔥📛 Summary of SCN issued in FORM GST DRC-01 does not substitute proper SCN required under Section 73(1): HC
➡️ A valid SCN under Section 73(1) must clearly state the factual and legal basis of the proposed demand. Merely issuing a summary in FORM GST DRC-01 or attaching a tax computation does not fulfill the statutory requirement. The SCN enables the taxpayer to effectively respond; its absence vitiates the entire proceeding.
➡️ Sections 73(1)–(4) make a clear distinction between a SCN, a Statement, and the DRC summaries. Even when a Statement under Section 73(3) is issued, a separate SCN is still required. Rule 142 mandates DRC-01/DRC-02 only as supplementary summaries, not substitutes for the primary, detailed notice or statement.
➡️ Attachments and summaries bearing only “Sd – Proper Officer” without digital or e-sign authentication are invalid. Under Rule 26(3), electronic authentication by the Proper Officer is compulsory. Courts have extended this requirement to demand and recovery proceedings to uphold legal validity. Unsigned or unauthenticated notices/orders cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
➡️ Sections 2(91) and 73 collectively mandate that all notices, statements, and orders must be issued and authenticated by the Proper Officer. Failure to do so renders such documents unenforceable. DRC summaries, lacking such authentication, cannot confer jurisdiction or replace duly signed statutory documents.
➡️ Even if the taxpayer does not file a reply, a personal hearing is mandatory whenever an adverse decision is contemplated. Leaving the hearing column blank in DRC-01 and passing an ex parte order violates Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order under Section 73(9) was set aside, with liberty for de novo proceedings; the limitation period stands excluded accordingly.
✔️ Gauhati HC – Suhel Ahmed v. Union of India [WP(C) 4767 of 2025]
🔥📛 SCN, not summons, marks initiation under Section 6(2)(b); parallel GST proceedings barred for same liability:HC
➡️ The Court held that when both State and Central GST authorities act on the same subject-matter (identical suppliers, transactions, and tax periods), only the authority that initiated Section 74 proceedings first can continue. Any subsequent proceedings by the other authority are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
➡️ Since the State Proper Officer had already initiated enforcement under Section 74 through DRC-01A in July 2021, the later Central (DGGI) action on the same issue was invalid. The CBEC’s 05.10.2018 circular also mandated that the authority initiating the case must carry it to its logical conclusion.
➡️ The Court clarified—relying on Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate (SC)—that summons or inquiry under Section 70 does not constitute initiation of proceedings. A proceeding formally begins only upon the issue of a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 74.
➡️ The “subject-matter” for applying Section 6(2)(b) was interpreted as the tax liability or deficiency arising from a specific contravention. Thus, where both authorities pursue recovery for the same alleged wrongful ITC or transaction set, concurrent adjudication is impermissible.
➡️ Since the Central proceedings (SCN, OIO, and DRC-07s) mirrored the prior State action, they were declared invalid, inoperative, and non est. The writ petition was allowed, reaffirming that cross-empowerment does not override the statutory bar against parallel adjudication.
✔️ Orissa HC – Tansam Engineering and Construction Company v. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Rourkela [W.P. (C) No. 15935 of 2025]
🔥📛 Madras HC dismisses appeal against Tata-Play ruling applying SC’s COVID-order for recalculating limitation
➡️ The Madras High Court affirmed that the Supreme Court’s suo motu order—excluding the period March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022—continues to apply for computing limitation periods in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings under GST and other laws.
➡️ The Court dismissed the assessee’s writ appeals, upholding the Single Judge’s interpretation that the SC’s exclusion period remains valid despite the later introduction of Section 168A of the CGST Act, which provides for an extension of time during force majeure events.
➡️ The Court clarified that the Supreme Court’s order relates to “exclusion of limitation”, whereas Section 168A notifications deal with “extension of time”. These operate in different legal fields, and therefore, the SC’s exclusion order continues to govern limitation computations.
➡️ The Single Judge held that Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023, issued under Section 168A, were vitiated and illegal, as they could not override or dilute the exclusion of time already provided under the SC’s suo motu order.
➡️ Applying the SC’s exclusion directive, the High Court recomputed the limitation period for passing adjudication orders for FY 2017–18 and 2018–19, confirming that time between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, must be excluded from limitation calculation for such proceedings.
✔️ Madras HC – Oasis Cybernetics Pvt Ltd vs State Tax Officer
🔥📛 SC issues notice against Delhi HC-judgment over negative-blocking of ITC under Rule 86A
➡️ The Supreme Court issued notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue challenging the Delhi High Court’s judgment that quashed the negative blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) beyond the balance actually available.
➡️ The Delhi High Court emphasized the precise wording of Rule 86A(1)—specifically, the phrase “not allow debit of an amount equivalent to such credit in the electronic credit ledger”—and held that it only empowers authorities to restrict utilization of existing ITC, not to create a negative balance.
➡️ Applying the literal rule of interpretation, the Court found no ambiguity or absurdity in the rule’s language and concluded that it cannot be stretched to authorize blocking ITC that does not exist in the ledger.
➡️ The Court clarified that blocking ITC under Rule 86A cannot operate as a recovery mechanism. Any action requiring the taxpayer to “replenish” ITC already utilized would effectively amount to tax recovery without due process, which is impermissible under the GST framework.
➡️ The Delhi High Court disagreed with the Calcutta High Court’s view in Basanta Kumar Shaw and instead aligned with the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Samay Alloys, reinforcing that Rule 86A cannot be invoked to create a negative balance in the taxpayer’s ECL.
✔️ SC – Principal Commissioner vs. Best Corp Science
🔥📛 HC: Parallel proceedings by Central Proper Officer on matter already initiated by State authority, invalid
➡️ The Orissa HC quashed the SCN issued by the DGGI (Central Proper Officer) and the consequential order, holding that once the State Proper Officer had initiated proceedings on the same subject matter, any subsequent proceeding by the Central Proper Officer was barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
➡️ The Court agreed with the assessee that initiation of parallel proceedings by both Central and State authorities for the same alleged wrongful ITC claim would amount to double taxation, which is expressly prohibited by Section 6(2)(b).
➡️ Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Armour Security (India) Ltd., the HC clarified that the issuance of summons under Section 70 does not constitute “initiation of proceedings.” Therefore, the State’s SCN under Section 74 marked the actual initiation point, rendering the later Central SCN invalid.
➡️ The Court relied on CBIC’s D.O.F. No. CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST (Pt.) and Circular F. No. CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST, which reinforce that once one authority (State or Central) is seized of a matter, the other cannot reinitiate proceedings on the same issue.
➡️ Since the Central SCN was held invalid, the Court ruled that the entire proceeding and the resultant order-in-original fell with it — applying the principle that when the foundation (SCN) is void, the entire structure (order) collapses.
✔️ Orrisa HC – Tansam Engineering and Construction Company Vs. The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 15935 of 2025]
