LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 24.04.2025
|
🔥📛 Delhi HC stays Rs 600 Cr demand against ‘Grid Controller of India’ for operating/regulating electricity ➡️ The Delhi High Court (HC) has granted interim relief to Grid Controller of India Limited (GCIL), a government-owned enterprise under the Ministry of Power, in a case involving a demand for Rs. 600 crores in GST. ➡️ GCIL operates India’s electricity grid through the National Load Despatch Centre (NLDC) and five Regional Load Despatch Centres (RLDCs), regulating electricity flow within and across regions and managing trans-national power exchanges. ➡️ GCIL challenged the revenue order, arguing that its activities were exempt from GST under Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) and Notification No. 9/2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate), which exempt the supply of ‘Transmission or distribution of electricity’ from GST, similar to the exemption under the service tax regime. ➡️ GCIL contended that its activities are statutory duties performed under the Electricity Act, as directed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), and that the revenue department failed to prove any deviation from the exemption granted under the service tax regime. ➡️ The HC observed a prima-facie case in favor of GCIL, noting that no appeal was filed by the revenue department against the order dropping service tax. The HC granted a stay and directed the revenue department to take instructions before the next hearing. ✔️ Delhi HC – Grid Controller India Ltd. vs Union of India [W.P.(C) 5177/2025] |
|
🔥📛 HC: ‘Common-portal’, a designated computer-resource; Service of Notice complete upon uploading; Sets-aside ex-parte orders ➡️ The Madras High Court, in a 99-page judgment, disposed of a batch of writ petitions challenging the manner of service of notices and orders through a common portal. The court held that service through the portal is a proper mode of service. ➡️ The judgment interpreted Section 169 of the CGST Act/TNGST Act, 2017 in conjunction with Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It determined that the common portal is a computer resource, designated or otherwise, within the scope of Section 13(2)(a) & 13(2)(b) of the IT Act, 2000. This means that entering records in the common portal is sufficient for service. ➡️ The court observed that from the issuance of a GST Registration number until its cancellation, the receipt of summons, notices, and other communications occurs when they are uploaded to the common portal. This applies regardless of whether the portal is designated as a computer resource by the assessee. ➡️ The judgment distinguished between Section 13(2)(a) and Section 13(2)(b) of the IT Act. If the assessee designates a computer resource, receipt occurs immediately when the electronic records enter that resource. If no computer resource is designated, receipt occurs when the electronic record enters the addressee’s computer resource. ➡️ The court suggested that the revenue department send reminders via RPAD before passing assessment orders to save time for both the assessee and officers. It criticized both the revenue department for not serving notices through registered post after the assessee failed to respond and the assessee for not responding. However, it deemed service through the portal proper but ineffective and set aside the ex parte assessment orders, emphasizing that alternative modes of service must be explored if service is not effective. ✔️ Madras HC – Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited, vs Commercial State Tax Officer [W.P. Nos. 1114, 2720, 2723, 2819, 2832, 3084 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 HC granted bail due to absence of DIN numbers in authorization letter and absence of grounds of arrest ➡️ The accused/petitioner was arrested under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act for allegedly issuing fake invoices without actual supply of goods and passing ineligible ITC. ➡️ The arrest memo was issued in compliance with Section 69 of the CGST Act, but there was a violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court rulings in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) due to non-compliance with Sections 47/48 of the BNSS. ➡️ The Authorization Letter/ Grounds of Arrest communicated to the petitioner were incomplete as they did not mention the required DIN numbers as per Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST, dated 5-11-2019. ➡️ The “reasons to believe” recorded in the file at the time of issuing the Authorization Letter of Arrest were not communicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest or while furnishing the grounds of arrest, resulting in non-compliance with Section 41/41A Cr.P.C. ➡️ The petitioner was in custody for 29/30 days, providing the Investigating Officer with ample opportunity for interrogation. Therefore, further custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to conditions. ✔️ Gauhati HC – Prabin Jha v. Union of India [Bail Appln. 963 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 Refund to be granted along with interest as physical verification confirmed that assessee was carrying on business from declared premises: HC ➡️ The assessee filed a petition against the rejection of their refund claim by the respondents, who argued that the assessee was not conducting any business. ➡️ A state officer inspected the assessee’s premises and discovered that the assessee was indeed carrying out business at their principal place of business. ➡️ It was also found that the documents related to the refund processing were in order, indicating that the refund claim was valid. ➡️ The court held that the assessee was entitled to the refund along with interest, as per the provisions of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. ➡️ The impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside, and the respondents were directed to issue the refund to the assessee along with interest, in favor of the assessee. ✔️ Bombay HC – Kroll Global Solutions LLP v. State of Maharashtra [WRIT PETITION NO. 13173 OF 2023] |
|
🔥📛 GST demand to be set aside as it was based on data not included in SCN issued to assessee: HC ➡️ The petitioner-assessee challenged an order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act for the period April 2018 to March 2019. This section pertains to the determination of tax liability and issuance of show cause notices. ➡️ The show cause notice indicated that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) was found to be reversible in proportion to the exempt supply. This means that the tax authorities initially suggested that the ITC claimed by the petitioner should be reversed to the extent it was related to supplies that were exempt from tax. ➡️ The proper officer concluded that the petitioners were liable to tax on the assessable value of outward supply on inward receipt of taxable goods. However, this determination and the imposition of liability based on the assessable value of outward supply on inward receipt of taxable goods were not mentioned in the show cause notice. ➡️ Furthermore, the determination of tax liability under CGST and WBGST at 5 per cent for other supplies, based on the data available with the officer, was also not included in the show cause notice. ➡️ Since the demand for tax based on these determinations was beyond the scope of the show cause notice, the demand could not be sustained. Therefore, the order was set aside in favour of the assessee, highlighting the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements under GST laws. ✔️ Calcutta HC – Duakem Pharma (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue [WPA No. 18295 of 2024] |
|
🔥📛 Notices uploaded only on GST portal would amount to sufficient service but not effective service: HC ➡️ The assessee can designate the common portal as a computer resource for receiving communications, orders, and summons under GST laws. ➡️ Once notices, orders, and other communications are uploaded to the common portal, the receipt is considered immediate. This occurs as soon as the electronic records enter the common portal, regardless of whether it has been designated by the assessee. ➡️ Uploading notices, orders, and other communications to the common portal is deemed a sufficient mode of service. However, if this mode is found to be ineffective, the revenue department should explore other prescribed modes of service. ➡️ If notices were uploaded to the common portal, the revenue department should have sent subsequent reminders through the Reverse Procedural Adjudication (RPAD) process before passing any order. ➡️ Although the service by the revenue department was sufficient, it was not effective. As a result, the impugned orders were to be set aside. ✔️ Madras HC – Axiom Gen Nxt India (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial State Tax Officer [W.P. Nos. 1114, 2720 and Others of 2025] |
