LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 24.06.2025
🔥📛 Orissa HC to examine validity of consolidated SCN issued for multiple years; Stays proceedings
➡️ The Orissa High Court examined the legality of consolidating multiple assessment years into a single Show Cause Notice (SCN) under GST proceedings.
➡️ The petitioner challenged the consolidation relying on the Karnataka HC ruling in Veremax Technologies, which held that issuing one SCN covering multiple financial years is impermissible.
➡️ The Revenue argued that the definition of “tax period” under Section 2(106) of the CGST Act supports consolidation, asserting that the SCN issued for multiple periods is valid.
➡️ After hearing both parties, the Orissa HC stayed further proceedings on the matter of consolidation pending detailed hearing, recognizing the complexity and divergent legal interpretations.
➡️ The matter is adjourned for further hearing on August 5, 2025, leaving the question of the permissibility of consolidated SCNs under GST open for final judicial determination.
✔️ Orissa HC – Bajwa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs The Chief Commissioner CT & GST, Cuttack & Others [W.P.(C) No. 15466 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Mere uploading of notices on GST portal not a valid mode of service
➡️ The court emphasized that merely uploading the summary of the show-cause notice on the GST portal does not fulfill the legal requirement of service under Section 169. Proper communication via registered post with acknowledgment or other recognized modes is mandatory.
➡️ The ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 73(5) and subsequent demand raised through Form DRC-07 was quashed due to the failure in serving the show-cause notice as prescribed, resulting in denial of the assessee’s opportunity to respond.
➡️ The court found that the assessment was completed without granting the assessee a proper hearing or chance to reply, which contravenes the procedural safeguards mandated in Section 74(5).
➡️ The core legal principle established is that uploading a notice on the GST portal cannot substitute the statutory modes of service. Physical or formal communication is essential to ensure the assessee is duly informed.
➡️ The matter was remanded to the proper authority with directions to issue a fresh show-cause notice following due process, allowing the assessee a fair opportunity to reply and be heard, thereby upholding principles of natural justice.
✔️ Patna HC – Binod Traders vs. The Union of India [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5495 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Writ not maintainable in case of fake invoicing, circular trading
➡️ The Gujarat HC upheld confiscation orders against scrap dealers involved in circular trading, evidenced by issuance of invoices and E-way bills without actual movement of goods, facilitated through bogus firms.
➡️ The assessee challenged the detention order (Form GST MOV-06), notice of confiscation (Form GST MOV-10), and confiscation order (Form GST MOV-11), alleging non-consideration of their reply. The court rejected this contention based on the record.
➡️ The HC found a malafide intention to evade tax since the purported purchases by the assessee and their suppliers were found to be non-existent during physical verification at the business premises.
➡️ Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Commercial Steel, the HC emphasized exercising caution under Article 227 while disposing of writ petitions and refrained from interfering with the confiscation order.
➡️ The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the assessee to seek remedy through the prescribed appellate process rather than extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Shree Devidayal Metals Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6598 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Payment under protest not construable as admission of liability; Directs fresh DRC-07
➡️ The court clarified that when an assessee reverses Input Tax Credit (ITC) “under protest,” it cannot be treated as an admission of tax liability, as the assessee retains the right to legally challenge the order.
➡️ The demand order imposing interest and penalty was quashed because it was wrongly founded on the assumption that payment under protest was voluntary or an admission of liability.
➡️ The assessee, registered in Nagaland but operating in Himachal Pradesh, provides services like survey, design, construction of transmission lines, and rural electrification sub-stations, classified under SAC 9954, 9987, etc., relevant to GST categorization.
➡️ The court emphasized that allegations of fraudulent ITC availment cannot be upheld solely based on a summary from the show cause notice (Form DRC-01) or suspicion without independent investigation and consideration of the assessee’s ITC reversal.
➡️ The High Court set aside the previous demand and directed the tax authorities to issue a fresh demand (DRC-07) reflecting only the disputed tax amount, allowing the assessee to raise all grounds in appeal before the Appellate Authority.
✔️ Himachal Pradesh HC – Shyama Power India Ltd. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. [CWP No. 6990 of 2025]
🔥📛 Order to be set aside as assessee stopped business after registration cancellation and was unaware of SCN and demand order: HC
➡️ The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled for the period July 2017 to March 2018 as they had ceased to carry on business.
➡️ A show cause notice was issued after a two-year gap, which went unnoticed by the assessee.
➡️ The impugned order was passed without the assessee’s knowledge or proper notice, resulting in a violation of the principles of natural justice.
➡️ The assessee requested an opportunity to represent their case afresh due to the procedural lapse.
➡️ The tribunal held that the impugned order should be quashed, subject to the assessee depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash, and directed that the matter be re-adjudicated with due opportunity given to the assessee.
✔️ Madras HC – Sri Ganapathy Textiles v. Deputy State Tax Officer, Karur [W.P.(MD) No. 15014 of 2025]
🔥📛 Appellate authority could not entertain appeal without mandatory pre-deposit despite assessee’s financial hardship: HC
➡️ Under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, an assessee appealing an order passed under Section 73 must make a mandatory pre-deposit before the Appellate Authority entertains the appeal.
➡️ The pre-deposit includes payment of the tax, interest, fine, and penalty determined by the adjudicating authority, plus 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount, subject to a maximum of Rs. 25 crores.
➡️ Failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement bars the Appellate Authority from admitting or hearing the appeal, regardless of the assessee’s financial difficulties or claims of hardship.
➡️ The Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to waive or relax the pre-deposit conditions in the absence of any specific legal provision or exceptional circumstances.
➡️ In the absence of compliance with mandatory pre-deposit, an assessee cannot seek relief by filing a writ petition, as no special case is made out to bypass statutory requirements.
✔️ Calcutta HC – I-Karb E-Sol (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax Behala Charge [WPA No. 2160 of 2025]
