LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 19.08.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine provisional attachment of property and bank-account towards recovery of dues
➡️ The Delhi HC has issued notice to the Revenue to examine the legality of provisional attachment of property and bank accounts under GST law, signaling judicial concern over its use as a recovery mechanism.
➡️ The matter has been linked with the pending petition in Brijbihari-Concast, where similar issues regarding prolonged provisional attachment without adjudication are under examination.
➡️ In Brijbihari-Concast, the Court noted that no show cause notice (SCN) was issued even after 16 months from the attachment order, raising doubts about the validity of continuing such attachments without initiating adjudication.
➡️ The HC ordered a status quo on the attachment of property and bank accounts in Brijbihari-Concast, subject to the retention of ₹1.5 crores in the petitioner’s bank account, thereby balancing revenue interests with taxpayer rights.
➡️ Observing the nature of such attachments, the Court has listed the present case for further hearing on 22nd September 2025, keeping the matter at the top of its board, highlighting its importance for GST jurisprudence.
✔️ Delhi HC – SL Golden Paptech Private Limited vs The Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, Delhi [W.P.(C) 12312/2025]
🔥📛 HC: No constitutional breach by taxing non-corporate security services supplier differently than corporate; Upholds Notification
➡️ The Bombay HC upheld restrictions on Input Tax Credit (ITC) attributable to exempt supplies, holding that such provisions fall within legislative policy and cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction. The assessee’s challenge under Articles 14 and 19 was rejected, as no case was made out for reading down the law.
➡️ The Court noted that the challenge to Section 17(2) & (3) is res integra, since similar arguments were already rejected by the Delhi HC in Pace Setters Business Solutions. Reliance was also placed on SC/HC judgments in Safari Retreats, Dharmendra Jani, Uber India Systems, and All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association.
➡️ The contention that applying Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) only to non-body corporates violates Article 14 was rejected. The Court clarified that the classification is based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the law’s objectives, similar to differing tax treatments under Income Tax law. Hence, no violation of equality principles arises.
➡️ The Court emphasized that assessees opting for registration do so with full knowledge of RCM applicability to their business. Denial of ITC under RCM cannot be termed unconstitutional, as GST ensures a seamless credit flow in the larger chain of supply, and provisions must be seen holistically, not in isolation.
➡️ Concluding that RCM provisions and ITC restrictions serve GST’s core objective of seamless credit transfer and do not infringe constitutional rights, the HC dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing the validity of the statutory framework.
✔️ Bombay HC – Eagle Security & Personnel Services Vs Union of India and Ors [WRIT PETITION NO. 1687 OF 2024]
🔥📛 No tax evasion intent if e-way bill not extended due to blocked highway and bad weather; penalty lowered: HC
➡️ Goods were moved from Manipur to West Bengal (1095 kms). The e-way bill expired at midnight on 3 April 2025 but was not extended within the permissible time (up to 8 a.m. on 4 April 2025). The vehicle was intercepted later on 4 April 2025.
➡️ All invoice details, goods quantity, and nature of goods were found to be correct. The only lapse was non-extension of the e-way bill beyond its validity period.
➡️ The appellants explained that delay was caused due to highway blockages (political rally, CM’s visit post-cyclone relief work, and inclement weather). Supporting documents, including weather reports, were produced to justify the delay.
➡️ Authorities did not allege tax evasion. The appellate authority failed to consider the genuine reasons presented for the delay in goods movement.
➡️ Imposition of 200% penalty was held unjustified in the absence of intent to evade tax. A notional penalty of ₹25,000 was deemed appropriate, balancing the procedural default with the bona fide circumstances.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Appollo Plywood Industries v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal [F.MA. 1237 of 2025]
🔥📛 Demand of GST from landowner citing non-registration of JDA unsustainable if GST on entire property collected from developer: HC
➡️ The landowner entered into a JDA with a developer to construct residential apartments. The developer discharged GST liability on the entire project, including the landowner’s 30% share.
➡️ Authorities held the landowner separately liable for GST on 100% of the property, arguing that the JDA was an unregistered document and hence could not be relied upon to shift liability to the developer.
➡️ The Court held that since GST on the full project had already been paid by the developer, demanding GST again from the landowner would result in impermissible double taxation.
➡️ The Deputy Commissioner (Audit) had earlier recognized and acted upon the JDA, accepting GST liability and payment by the developer. Therefore, the Revenue could not later take a contradictory stance against the landowner.
➡️ The impugned demand against the landowner was quashed, with the Court affirming that once GST had been discharged by the developer, no separate liability could be imposed on the landowner under the same transaction.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Shyamaraju and Co (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) Bangalore [WRIT PETITION NO. 5027 OF 2024 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 HC dismissed writ as order against recipient of fake ITC was appealable before tribunal
➡️ The assessee was issued a notice alleging fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment based on transactions with four suppliers, resulting in confirmation of demand through an Order-in-Original.
➡️ The assessee argued that the Delhi GST Department had already adjudicated the same issue for the same period, and hence the Central GST Department could not initiate parallel proceedings.
➡️ Relying on Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India (2025), the Court held that writ petitions are not maintainable against appealable orders, particularly in cases involving fraudulent ITC claims.
➡️ Since the impugned order was appealable, the Court directed the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate route before the Appellate Authority/Tribunal, instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
➡️ Recognizing that the time limit for filing an appeal might have lapsed, the Court granted liberty to the assessee to file the appeal along with the required pre-deposit, notwithstanding the delay.
✔️ Delhi HC – Sardar Auto Traders v. Additional Commissioner CGST [W.P.(C) No. 10518 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC orders release of person who was forcibly taken away from custody of warrant officer and illegally detained
➡️ The petitioner’s husband was found illegaally detained in the Central Revenue Building by GST intelligence officials, without being produced before a magistrate within 24 hours as mandated by law.
➡️ A court-appointed Warrant Officer, with police assistance, recovered the detenue from the premises, recorded his statement, and noted visible injuries. Despite this, the detenue was later forcibly taken away in a convoy of cars from the Warrant Officer’s custody.
➡️ Revenue officials not only misbehaved with the Warrant Officer but also obstructed him in discharging his court-directed duties—actions held to be contemptuous and a serious interference with the administration of justice.
➡️ To cover up the illegal custody, the department later issued a memo of arrest, but the court noted that this was a mere afterthought and did not justify the prior unlawful detention.
➡️ The court directed revenue authorities to file affidavits with full details of officials involved, original arrest records, and medical reports. Accepting the ADG’s assurance to follow Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2021) in letter and spirit, the court allowed the habeas corpus petition and ordered release of the detenue, unless required in another case.
✔️ P&H HC – Barkha Bansal v. State of U.T. Chandigarh [CRWP-6077 of 2025 (O & M)]
