LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 27.06.2025
🔥📛 Orissa HC dismisses writ petition challenging GSTAT Judicial Member selection process
➡️ The Court held that the Search-cum-Selection Committee acted within its powers by conducting a re-interview of shortlisted candidates. This did not violate Rule 3(4) of the GSTAT (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023, as the Rule does not preclude further scrutiny after initial shortlisting.
➡️ The Court clarified that Rule 3(4) merely outlines the shortlisting process and does not confer any automatic right to appointment or exemption from further evaluation. The Committee retains discretion to review and reassess candidates as part of its mandate.
➡️ The petitioner’s argument that shortlisting created a legitimate expectation of appointment was rejected. The Court emphasized that shortlisting is a preliminary step and does not grant a vested right to selection or final recommendation.
➡️ The re-interview process was found to be fair, transparent, and in line with constitutional principles. There was no evidence of bias, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety in the Committee’s actions.
➡️ The Court reaffirmed that judicial review does not extend to evaluating the subjective satisfaction or comparative assessment made by expert committees, especially in selection processes involving specialized knowledge like appointments to GSTAT.
✔️ Orissa HC – Pranaya Kishore Harichandan vs Union of India and Others [WP(C)/15220/2025]
🔥📛 Service of notice by making it available on GST portal is sufficient: HC
➡️ The court held that uploading a notice on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service under the law, aligning with Section 169 of the CGST Act, even if not served through other traditional modes.
➡️ The assessee’s claim—that they were not properly served as per the methods specified in Section 169—was dismissed, as mere non-receipt through other modes does not invalidate service effected via the portal.
➡️ The ruling relied on a binding precedent from the Kerala High Court in Sunil Kumar K v. State Tax Officer-I, which established that service through portal upload meets legal requirements.
➡️ The court emphasized that availability of the notice on the portal is sufficient to initiate or continue proceedings under Section 73, thereby validating the respondent authority’s actions.
➡️ Given the clarity on the issue from earlier case law and absence of procedural irregularity, the court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.
✔️ Kerala HC – T.K Navas v. Commissioner of Goods and Service Taxes [WP(C) NO. 20976 OF 2025]
🔥📛 Petition dismissed as ITC reversal warranted where supplier failed to remit tax and assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction: HC
➡️ The assessee was denied input tax credit (ITC) on the grounds that while the supplier collected tax, it failed to remit it to the government. The authorities held the assessee liable under such circumstances, in line with prevailing GST principles.
➡️ Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P.) Ltd., it was reiterated that merely producing invoices is not sufficient; the onus is on the purchasing dealer to establish the genuineness of the transaction.
➡️ The assessee contested the applicability of Section 74 (invocation of extended limitation period for fraud or suppression). However, the court held that since the ITC was availed provisionally and the supplier defaulted in tax payment, Section 74 was rightly invoked.
➡️ It was affirmed that ITC claimed on transactions where the supplier has not paid the tax must be reversed along with applicable interest, as per settled GST law.
➡️ The court dismissed the assessee’s petition but granted liberty to file a statutory appeal, preserving the assessee’s right to further contest the order through the appropriate legal remedy.
✔️ Madras HC – Tvl. Global Offset Printers v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) [W.P.(MD) No. 13785 of 2025]
🔥📛 Assessee is allowed to correct error in Form GST DRC 03 and benefit of ITC reversal granted as ITC was never utilized: HC
The assessee had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period July 2017 to March 2018 by filing returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, but had never utilized the said ITC.
Upon being flagged by the anti-evasion wing of CGST authorities, the assessee voluntarily reversed the wrongly availed ITC by filing Form GST DRC-03, demonstrating bona fide compliance.
While reversing the ITC, the assessee committed a technical error by not selecting the correct tax period in the DRC-03 form, which led to the authorities denying the benefit of reversal on procedural grounds.
The adjudicating and appellate authorities acknowledged that the case involved no tax evasion and recognized the voluntary reversal of the entire ITC amount. However, they still denied relief due to the technical form error.
The court held that the inadvertent error in Form DRC-03 was procedural in nature and could be corrected. Accordingly, the matter was remanded for re-adjudication to allow proper consideration of the voluntary reversal.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Kamdhenu Udyog (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue [WPA 9957 of 2025]
