LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 20.11.2025
🔥📛 Madras HC to examine taxability of services provided by state-owned Multi-System-Operators supplying cable services
➡️ The core issue is whether the Government-owned MSO, Thamizhaga Cable TV Communication Ltd., is liable to pay GST on the entire subscription revenue collected by Local Cable Operators (LCOs), as alleged by the Revenue.
➡️ Revenue contends that the MSO is the actual supplier of cable-TV services to end-subscribers since subscriptions are routed through LCOs; hence GST should be discharged on the full subscriber consideration, not only on the MSO’s 50% share.
➡️ The MSO relies on the mandatory Interconnection Agreement, under which LCOs are responsible for billing, collection, and retaining 50% of subscription amounts. The arrangement is argued to be principal-to-principal, not principal–agent, and the MSO has already paid GST on its 50% share.
➡️ The MSO submits that the assessment order improperly overrides the contractual allocation of responsibilities, ignores statutory requirements under the Agreement, and incorrectly fastens the tax liability solely on the MSO instead of on the LCOs.
➡️ The Court finds initial merit in the MSO’s arguments—especially regarding the 50:50 revenue sharing acknowledged even in the impugned order—tags the case with a similar pending matter, and lists it for final hearing.
✔️ Madras HC – Thamizhaga Cable TV Communication Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Taxes
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine vires of SCN issued post special-audit in breach of statutory procedure
➡️ The assessee (Tata Projects Ltd.) questioned the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to issue a Section 73 CGST/DGST notice, arguing that as per CBIC Circular No. 31/05/2018, demands exceeding ₹2 crore must be issued only by an Additional/Joint Commissioner.
➡️ The assessee contended that the Revenue failed to meet statutory pre-conditions for a special audit, including the requirement that such audit be preceded by proper scrutiny, inquiry, or investigation.
➡️ It was argued that no draft/final audit report, Form ADT-04, or personal hearing (mandated under Section 66(4)) was given, compromising the fairness and legality of the audit process.
➡️ The special audit report was allegedly finalized and assigned a UDIN barely an hour before issuance of the SCN, leading to a summary notice without adequate narration of allegations, contrary to Rule 142(1)(a).
➡️ The Delhi High Court noted that the core issue concerns whether the SCN could be issued by an Assistant Commissioner despite the circular’s monetary limits. The Court issued notice to the Revenue and listed the matter for December 9, 2025, for further hearing.
✔️ Delhi HC – TATA PROJECTS LIMITED V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS [W.P.(C) 16888/2025]
🔥📛 SC seeks detailed clarification on EWB–Weighment discrepancy before release, in seized Areca-Nuts case
➡️ The Supreme Court noted that the e-way bill was generated before the weighment of goods, and the intercepted weight exceeded the invoice weight by 420 kg, making the entire transaction suspect and justifying interception/seizure under Section 129.
➡️ The Court directed the Petitioner to file an affidavit within one week clarifying:
(i) Source and procurement details of the areca nut consignment,
(ii) Procurement value, and
(iii) Delivery destination—all to test the credibility of the taxpayer’s claim of unawareness regarding alleged violations.
➡️ Despite an earlier Court direction, the Department’s insistence on a Rule 140 bond for provisional release was viewed in the context of the serious doubts surrounding the EWB; hence, no immediate order for release was granted.
➡️ The Court observed that the Section 129(3) notice and penalty order (dated 2 June 2025) clearly set out the contraventions. Therefore, the argument that the taxpayer had “no idea” of violations was prima facie unacceptable.
➡️ Although the Calcutta High Court had disposed of the intra-court appeal on the ground of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 and permitted public auction of goods, the Supreme Court has taken up the matter and will decide further after examining the affidavit and explanations.
✔️ SC – S.N. TRADING COMPANY AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [SLP (C) No. 22173/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Circular restricting ‘deemed export ’ refund cannot be invoked to deny refund to ‘actual exporter’
➡️ The Gujarat High Court held that Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST— meant only for deemed exports—cannot be invoked to deny refund to a 100% EOU that is the actual exporter, especially when it never claimed ITC as a deemed exporter under Section 2(39).
➡️ Since the assessee exported goods under LUT and claimed refund of unutilised ITC under Section 54(3) r/w Rule 89(4), the Court quashed the orders withdrawing the earlier sanctioned refunds and the consequent recovery, holding Revenue’s action contrary to the GST Act.
➡️ The Court clarified that Para 2.2 of Circular 172 would apply only if the suppliers had (i) claimed refund as deemed exporters on such supplies, or (ii) treated the supplies as deemed exports instead of regular B2B. As neither condition existed, the Circular had no relevance.
➡️ Revenue’s reliance on Rule 89(4A) (now omitted from 8-10-2024) to deny refund was improper because the assessee’s claim related to zero-rated supplies by an exporter, not to deemed export transactions covered by 89(4A).
➡️ Although the refund (for Dec 2021–Mar 2022 and Apr 2022) had been provisionally sanctioned before the Circular’s issue, Revenue attempted withdrawal by applying the Circular retrospectively. The Court held that Revenue “lost sight” of the assessee’s actual-exporter status and reaffirmed the assessee’s eligibility for refund.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Shah Paperplast Industries Ltd. & Anr Vs Union Of India & Ors [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18892 of 2023]
🔥📛 HC: Proscribes duplicate impost for DGST–CGST overlap; Permits appeal filing without pre-deposit
➡️ The Delhi High Court held that an assessee cannot be required to make two pre-deposits on the same transaction-set when both CGST and DGST demands substantially overlap for the same period.
➡️ The Court noted that the CGST demand (approx. ₹56.50 lakh) under Section 74—based on alleged fraudulent ITC from the same vendor—largely duplicates the earlier DGST demand (approx. ₹56.78 lakh) for FY 2017-18.
➡️ Since the assessee had already deposited 10% pre-deposit for the DGST appeal, demanding another pre-deposit for the CGST appeal was held to be unjustified and duplicative.
➡️ The Court allowed the assessee to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act without any pre-deposit and directed that no limitation objection be raised.
➡️ The authority was instructed to issue a personal hearing notice to the assessee at the designated email and mobile number to ensure fair opportunity of representation.
✔️ Delhi HC – Vaneeta Impex Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 15169/2025]
🔥📛 Penalty under CGST limited to SCN amount as excess and parallel penalties are arbitrary; matter remanded: HC
➡️ The Court held that the adjudicating authority is strictly bound by the Show Cause Notice; penalty cannot be imposed in excess of the amount proposed therein, nor can it exceed the tax finally determined.
➡️ Adjudication must remain confined to SCN grounds: Any penalty or confirmation of demand must arise only from the allegations and proposals contained in the SCN. Imposing penalty on new or additional grounds not mentioned in the SCN is impermissible.
➡️ Once a penalty is imposed under the fraud-related determination provision (e.g., Section 74 of the CGST Act), no separate or parallel penalty can be invoked under any other provision for the same act or omission.
➡️ Even if tax and interest are modified during adjudication, the corresponding penalty must align proportionately; it cannot exceed the tax finally confirmed.
➡️ Since the authorities imposed a penalty exceeding both the SCN proposal and the confirmed tax, and invoked parallel penalty provisions, the penalty order was held arbitrary and illegal. Tax and interest were upheld, but the penalty aspect was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Metal N Strips v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (APPEALS – 3) [WRIT PETITION No. 3208 OF 2024 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 Recovery from director’s personal account for company dues requires prior adjudication; attachment lifted: HC
➡️ Director’s personal liability for company GST dues cannot be presumed—a prior, independent adjudication establishing such liability is mandatory before any recovery action against the director’s personal assets.
➡️ The petitioner served as Director of EWIE Services India Pvt. Ltd. during 2018–19 but had resigned in 2023; nevertheless, the department attached the petitioner’s personal bank account to recover tax arrears arising from an assessment order dated 26.04.2024 against the company.
➡️ Since the company has separately challenged the assessment order in a pending writ, recovery from the former director cannot automatically proceed based on the company’s disputed liability.
➡️ The Court held that the impugned DRC-13 attachment order must be treated only as a show-cause notice for initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner, who must be given an opportunity to submit a detailed representation within 30 days.
➡️ The department must adjudicate director liability through a reasoned (speaking) order within two months after hearing the petitioner; until then, the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account stands lifted, subject to no unusual transactions.
✔️ Madras HC – Subir Ghosh v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [W.P. No. 34643 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Non-submission of eBRCs/FIRCs cannot derail refund claim where Revenue has full details
➡️ The Karnataka High Court held that refund of unutilized ITC cannot be denied merely for non-submission of eBRCs/FIRCs, especially when the assessee had already produced them and the Revenue was aware of their details.
➡️ The Court found the Appellate Authority’s conclusion factually incorrect, noting that the assessee had submitted the eBRCs/FIRCs and corresponding details during the proceedings.
➡️ Relying on the earlier Karnataka HC ruling in Nokia Solutions and Networks India, the Court reiterated that refund cannot be withheld when export remittances are proven and documentation has been submitted.
➡️ Since the assessee had furnished all eBRCs/FIRCs, the Court accepted the argument that the Revenue’s objection regarding non-submission no longer survived, rendering the denial of refund unsustainable.
➡️ The HC set aside the denial order and directed the Revenue to grant the refund of unutilized ITC as originally sanctioned, along with applicable interest, within two months.
✔️ Karnataka HC – Mavenir Systems Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors [WRIT PETITION NO. 15323 OF 2022]
