LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 23.06.2025
🔥📛 SC stays HC order stalling reversed transitional credit refund; Issues notice
➡️ The Supreme Court issued notice in the petitioner’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Bombay High Court’s judgment that stayed the CESTAT ruling ordering a ₹256 crore refund, while allowing the Revenue to appeal before the SC under Sections 35-G and 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
➡️ The Revenue simultaneously filed a writ petition and an appeal before the Bombay High Court against the CESTAT Mumbai decision, which had upheld the petitioner’s eligibility to claim refund of service tax credit under the GST regime via Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.
➡️ The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred in granting a stay after declaring the appeal not maintainable and disposing of both the writ petition and appeal as not pressed.
➡️ The Supreme Court clarified that its order does not bar the Revenue from directly filing an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act against the CESTAT ruling.
➡️ The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on the High Court’s impugned order and scheduled an early hearing on July 2, emphasizing expedited resolution.
✔️ SC – Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 16784-16785/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Directs original-authority to issue individual orders for each year encompassed u/s 128A Amnesty Benefit
➡️ The Karnataka High Court quashed the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax’s assessment order covering the financial years 2017-18 through 2020-21.
➡️ The assessee had formally expressed its intention to opt for the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act for the first three years (2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20).
➡️ The Court permitted the assessee to proceed with the Amnesty Scheme benefits for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, recognizing the statutory right to that relief.
➡️ The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for issuance of distinct assessment orders for each of the three covered periods, ensuring clarity and compliance with procedural norms.
➡️ As to the 2020-21 period, the Court declined to grant Amnesty relief but granted the assessee freedom to pursue any available remedies—such as filing a writ petition in the High Court.
✔️ Kerala HC – IBC Knowledge Park (p) Ltd vs UOI & ors [WRIT PETITION NO. 13355 OF 2024 (T-RES)]
🔥📛 HC: Same adjudicatory authority to decide revocation application against GSTIN suspension retrospectively timely
➡️ The Delhi High Court reiterated that an assessees’ application for revocation of GST registration cancellation must be adjudicated within a clearly prescribed timeframe, here directing the proper officer to decide within four months.
➡️ To ensure a holistic review, the Court ordered that both its prior interim direction and the assessee’s rectification application be placed before the same adjudicating authority, avoiding divergent decisions by multiple officers.
➡️ Emphasizing audi alteram partem, the HC mandated issuance of a personal-hearing notice—and specifically via the assessee’s registered email and mobile number—before any adverse order is passed.
➡️ Even where registration was cancelled w.e.f. July 1, 2017, the Court affirmed that a statutory revocation remedy remains available, and cannot be left undecided indefinitely.
➡️ By disposing of the writ petition with detailed directions rather than outright dismissal, the High Court underscored its role in ensuring that procedural delays or omissions (e.g., failure to grant hearing) do not prejudice the assessee’s substantive rights.
✔️ Delhi HC – Aniankita Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST [W.P.(C) 8049/2025 & CM APPL. 35263/2025]
🔥📛 HC: S.54(11) not operational standalone absent stay on order by Appellate-Authority sanctioning refund
➡️ The department’s “opinion” under Section 54(11) cannot, by itself, overturn an Appellate Authority’s order; it is strictly a provisional measure pending a formal appeal or other challenge.
➡️ An assessee providing freight-forwarding services (at 18% GST) sought a refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) for January 2023, which was initially denied by the Assistant Commissioner.
➡️ On appeal, the Appellate Authority allowed the refund claim, confirming the assessee’s entitlement to the unutilized ITC.
➡️ The GST Department issued an opinion under Section 54(11) purporting to reverse the Appellate Authority’s order—despite no appeal being filed—thereby withholding the refund.
➡️ Citing precedents (notably Shalender Kumar), the Delhi High Court held that, absent any appeal or proceeding to challenge the appellate order, Section 54(11) cannot justify withholding the refund. The Court directed immediate release of the refund with statutory interest.
✔️ Delhi HC – K-NXT Logisticx Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. [W.P.(C) 3713/2025 & CM APPL. 17335/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Restricts pre-deposit for sweetmeat shop-cum-restaurant operator in ineligible ITC dispute, cites demand duplication
➡️ The Delhi HC observed that the revenue’s order duplicated two identical ITC demands—reversal of ineligible credit and alleged excess utilization against GSTR-2A—requiring consolidation for pre-deposit purposes.
➡️ While GST on restaurant services is capped at 5% (disallowing ITC under Notification No. 46/2017-CT(R)), the court noted that sweetmeat retailing attracts a higher GST rate, making its input credits prima facie admissible.
➡️ The SCN challenged the entire ITC claim on the basis of restaurant supply; however, the confirmed demands actually pertained to both reversal (ineligible credit) and utilization (return mismatch), which are legally the same levy framed separately.
➡️ Out of eight confirmed demands, the HC restricted the pre-deposit to only those under Section 74 (fraudulent or wilful misstatement) covering short payment, truly ineligible ITC, and excess GSTR-3B utilization vis-à-vis GSTR-2A, excluding penalties and interest for Notification 46/2017 contraventions.
➡️ The court permitted the assessee to appeal upon furnishing the specified pre-deposit by July 15, 2025, directing that any amount already deposited be credited against this requirement.
✔️ Delhi HC – Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner, CGST [W.P.(C) 8028/2025 & CM APPL. 35217/2025]
🔥📛 No interim relief where only DRC-1A notice issued and SCN yet to be served: HC
➡️ The authorities conducted search and seizure at the petitioner’s business premises without issuing a seizure list or providing copies of INS-1 and INS-2, despite serving a summons under Section 70.
➡️ To date, the respondents have issued only a DRC-01A notice under Section 74; no show-cause notice has been formally served on the petitioner.
➡️ As per GST Circular 10/2017 (13 October 2017), businesses with turnover not exceeding ₹20 lakhs in a financial year are exempt from GST registration—applicable to the petitioner.
➡️ Since no show-cause notice has been issued, there is no substantive demand or adjudication against the petitioner to stay, removing the basis for any interim order.
➡️ In view of the procedural deficiencies and lack of a formal show-cause notice, the petitioner was not entitled to any interim relief.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Moushumi Sen v. Union of India [WPA No. 9480 of 2025]
🔥📛 SCN and adjudication order set aside as department failed to consider assessee’s reply: HC
➡️ The assessing authority wrongly refused the assessee’s input tax credit (ITC) claimed under the IGST Act for imports and inward supplies from an SEZ unit, solely because Form GSTR-2A then lacked a mechanism to record such credits.
➡️ In issuing the show-cause notice and subsequent order, the department failed to consider the detailed reply submitted by the assessee, resulting in a procedurally flawed adjudication.
➡️ The appellate authority set aside the impugned order and directed the adjudicating officer to re-examine the case afresh, ensuring the assessee’s reply is duly considered.
➡️ The assessee contested the validity of CBIC Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax (dated 31 March 2023) and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax (dated 28 December 2023), both of which extended the statutory limitation for adjudication.
➡️ As the validity of these notifications is sub judice before the Supreme Court, any challenge in the present proceedings is to be decided in accordance with that ultimate judicial pronouncement.
✔️ Delhi HC – Rahul Singhal v. Commissioner, Central Tax, (Delhi West) Engg. India Ltd. [W.P. (C) No. 16072 of 2024]
🔥📛 GST authorities bound to act against supplier as assessee could not utilize ITC due to non-filing of GSTR-1 by supplier: HC
➡️ The assessee, engaged in coal loading, unloading, and transportation, paid SGST and CGST on vehicle rental services to R-6 for October 2020–March 2021. However, these credits did not appear in its GSTR-2A because R-6 failed to file his GSTR-1, thereby blocking the assessee’s ability to claim input tax credit (ITC).
➡️ On discovering the omission, the assessee issued legal notices to R-6 demanding submission of GSTR-1 and lodged formal representations with GST authorities, alerting them to R-6’s non-compliance and the resultant ITC denial.
➡️ Section 76(2) of the CGST Act mandates that, upon receipt of information regarding tax collected but not deposited, authorities must immediately initiate recovery proceedings against the supplier. In this case, they failed to act despite clear statutory obligation.
➡️ The HC held that GST authorities had no valid justification for inaction and were “bound to take action … forthwith” against R-6 for collecting tax without remittance to the government, which directly impaired the assessee’s right to ITC.
➡️ The writ petition was allowed, directing the GST authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 76 against R-6 to recover the tax he collected and deposit it with the government, thereby restoring the assessee’s entitlement to the previously denied input tax credit.
✔️ Jharkhand HC – R.K. Transport & Constructions Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand [W.P. (T) No. 1624 of 2024]
