LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 20.06.2025
🔥📛 Gauhati HC’s relief to Tata-Projects, to examine validity of SCNs clubbed for multiple-years
➡️ The Gauhati High Court granted interim relief to Tata Projects, which is engaged in government works contracts in Assam, by restraining the Revenue from taking coercive action related to excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) utilization for FY 2018–19 to 2020–21.
➡️ The Revenue had initiated proceedings through a single show cause notice (SCN) covering multiple years, proposing denial of ITC due to mismatches, resulting in a demand exceeding Rs. 14 crore along with interest and penalty.
➡️ Tata Projects had already challenged the order by filing an appeal, which was rejected, but the company had deposited the pre-deposit required at the appellate stage.
➡️ The High Court noted these facts and directed the Revenue not to enforce any coercive measures regarding the demand until the next hearing.
➡️ The Court issued a notice to the Revenue, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on July 18, 2025.
✔️ Gauhati HC – Tata Projects Ltd Assam Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C)/2922/2025]
🔥📛 SCN issued after limitation period held unsustainable as contractor unaware of tax liability in absence of invoice from Government: HC
➡️ The petitioner, a government contractor engaged in road and building construction, purchased materials like sand and bricks directly from the market and did not receive any goods or services from the government for the contract work.
➡️ The government sought to recover royalty by deducting it from the petitioner’s bills, but the petitioner challenged this demand, arguing that the show cause notice was barred by the limitation period under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
➡️ The petitioner contended that no invoice was issued by the government department for the alleged service, which would have informed him about the service tax liability and applicable rates, and he had not registered for service tax due to the exemption.
➡️ The court held that the petitioner’s activity was exempt under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25 of 2012, so no service tax was payable, and mere lack of registration did not imply fraud or willful suppression of tax liability.
➡️ Since the petitioner did not act fraudulently or with intent to evade tax, the show cause notice was time-barred, and the extended limitation period was not applicable; thus, the demand and notice were quashed.
✔️ Patna HC – Anil Kumar Singh v. Union of India [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9105 of 2024]
🔥📛 Matter remanded as assessment order passed without personal hearing violated principles of natural justice: HC
➡️ A show cause notice under Section 73 of the GST Act was issued to the assessee for allegedly filing incorrect tax returns, but it was only uploaded on the GST portal without any direct communication.
➡️ The assessing authority passed an order levying tax because the assessee neither paid the disputed tax nor responded to the notice, assuming the portal upload was sufficient service.
➡️ The assessee argued that it never received a proper notice since it was only uploaded on the portal, and they were ready to pay 25% of the disputed tax if given a fresh opportunity.
➡️ The court held that mere uploading of the notice on the portal, without ensuring actual receipt by the assessee, does not amount to effective service of notice.
➡️ The order was set aside as illegal and unsustainable because the assessee was not given a personal hearing or proper notice, and the authorities should have sent the notice via a reliable mode like RPAD to ensure proper service.
✔️ Madras HC – Tvl. JRS Documents Service v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai [WP No. 16933 of 2025]
🔥📛 Design and engineering services provided to foreign group companies qualify as export and refund to be allowed: HC
➡️ The assessee, providing design and engineering services to its group companies abroad, had previously received refunds of unutilized ITC for earlier periods without departmental appeals.
➡️ When the assessee filed for refunds for July to December 2021, the department rejected the claim, alleging the assessee acted as an agent of the foreign recipient, thus disqualifying the supply as export and zero-rated.
➡️ Circular No. 161/2017/2021 clarified that supplies to related parties qualify as export of services, negating the department’s agency argument.
➡️ The definition of an agent requires involvement of a third party, but here only two parties existed—the assessee and its foreign group companies—so the assessee cannot be considered an agent.
➡️ The assessee and the foreign recipients are independent entities, the services qualify as exports, and the assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized ITC on zero-rated supplies.
✔️ Bombay HC – Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 15228 OF 2023]
