LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 18.04.2025 – A2Z TAXCORP LLP

🔥📛 ‘Paytm’   challenges Revenue’s denial of KKC transition alleging suppression; Allahabad   HC grants interim-relief

➡️ The Allahabad   High Court has restrained the Department from taking any coercive measures   following the Adjudicating Authority’s order. This order invoked an extended   period under Section 74 due to the transition of Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) by   the Assessee (PayTM group companies) in its TRAN-1 without disclosing it to   the Department under Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

➡️ The Assessee   argued that there was no suppression of information as the relevant material   (ST-3 and TRAN-1 returns) was already available with the Department.

➡️ The High   Court noted that conflicting judgments have been passed by the Bombay High   Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd. and the Madras High Court in   Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. regarding the transitioning of Cesses.

➡️ Appeals   against both conflicting judgments are pending before the Supreme Court.

➡️ The Allahabad   High Court acknowledged that similar disputes are pending before other High   Courts, where interim orders have been granted. It listed the matter for   further hearing on May 28.

✔️ Allahabad HC   – Paytm Payments Bank Ltd. VS UOI [WRIT TAX No. – 1627 of 2025]

🔥📛 HC’s   interim relief to Shemaroo executives for invoking penal provisions   retrospectively

➡️ The Bombay   High Court (HC) has granted interim relief to the Chief Executive Officer,   Director, and Joint Managing Director of Shemaroo Entertainment against an   order imposing a penalty of approximately Rs. 133 crores.

➡️ The HC noted   that Section 122(1A) of the GST law, which allows for the imposition of   penalties, came into effect only from January 1, 2021. Therefore, the   imposition of penalties for periods prior to this date is disputed.

➡️ The   petitioners argued that since Section 122(1A) is prospective in nature, it   cannot be applied retroactively. Hence, no penalty should be imposed for any   period before January 1, 2021.

➡️ The   petitioners also pointed out that the order dated February 1, 2025, extends   beyond the period covered by the show cause notice. The notice pertained to   the period from July 2017 to March 2022, while the order covers from July   2017 to July 2023.

➡️ After   allowing time for the Revenue to file an affidavit in reply, the HC,   referring to the decision in Shantanu Sanjay Hundekar affirmed by the Supreme   Court, directed that no coercive steps should be taken in relation to the   impugned order dated February 1, 2025.

✔️ Bombay HC – Amit   Manilal Haria & Ors. vs. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE &   Ors. [WRIT PETITION No. 5001 of 2025]

🔥📛 Reimbursement   to be allowed since GST rate difference arose due to mistaken identity of   recipient: HC

➡️ The assessee   initially paid GST at a 12% rate, believing that the respondent-corporation   was a government entity eligible for a concessional rate.

➡️ The Authority   for Advance Ruling determined that the correct GST rate applicable was 18%.

➡️ The   respondent had only reimbursed the assessee for 12% of the GST paid.

➡️ The contract   between the assessee and the respondent required the respondent to reimburse   the entire GST paid by the assessee.

➡️ The court   held that the respondent is liable to reimburse the differential 6% GST and   any interest for late payment recovered from the assessee, and directed the   respondent to reimburse the differential amount within three months.

✔️ Andhra   Pradesh HC – Siddartha Constructions v. Andhra Pradesh High Grade Steels Ltd.   Presently YSR Steel Corporation Ltd. [WRIT PETITION NO: 23603 of 2024]

➡️ The   petitioner-assessee claimed a refund for unutilized input tax credit related   to six shipping bills. The refund claim was initially granted on 25.05.2021.

➡️ The   department appealed against this order before the appellate authority. The   appellate authority, in its order dated 28.02.2023, upheld the claim for   three shipping bills but rejected it for the remaining three because those   bills were signed by the Inspector of Customs instead of the Superintendent   of Customs.

➡️ The   petitioner filed a writ petition against the appellate order, arguing that   the disputed shipping bills were later certified by the Superintendent of   Customs. However, these certified bills were not presented before the   appellate authority during the hearing.

➡️ The court   held that the petitioner should be allowed to rely on the newly certified   shipping bills. Consequently, the appellate order dated 28.02.2023 was set   aside to the extent that it pertained to the disputed shipping bills.

➡️ The appellate   authority was directed to rehear the appeal concerning the disputed shipping   bills, taking into account the certified documents.

✔️ Calcutta HC –   P. B Enterprise v. Union of India [WPA 306 of 2025]