LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 27.08.2025
🔥📛 Delhi- HC grants interim-stay to Rotary’s subsidiary on taxability of club-membership-fees under RCM
➡️ The Delhi HC stayed a show cause notice (SCN) issued to Rotary International South Asia Office (subsidiary of Rotary International, USA) demanding GST on club membership fees.
➡️ The petitioner highlighted that ₹96 crores of GST on such fees had already been deposited and duly reflected in monthly GSTR-3B returns, questioning the basis for further demands.
➡️ It was argued that Rotary International, USA does not receive any payment from its Indian subsidiary, hence liability under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) should not arise in the absence of any cross-border remittance.
➡️ The Bench specifically enquired about the justification for invoking RCM when the entire GST liability on membership fees had already been discharged in India.
➡️ Noting that the Adjudicating Authority is CGST (South) Delhi, the Court listed the case for further hearing on December 10, 2025, keeping open the larger issue of GST treatment of membership fees and RCM applicability.
✔️ Delhi HC – Rotary International South Asia Office vs. Joint Commissioner, CGST, South Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(C) 12539/2025]
🔥📛 Rotary International South Asia Office vs. Joint Commissioner, CGST, South Delhi & Ors.
➡️ The Bombay High Court quashed a GST demand of ₹4.83 crores on Goa University, holding that granting affiliation to colleges is not a commercial activity.
➡️ The HC gave a broad interpretation to “education,” concluding that affiliation is an intrinsic part of the educational process and not a standalone business service.
➡️ The HC held that a University qualifies as an “educational institution” since its dominant activity is imparting education, and hence activities connected to education cannot be treated as taxable business.
➡️ The Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, contesting the HC’s interpretation and quashing of the demand.
➡️ The SC condoned the delay in filing, issued notice on the SLP, and made it returnable in four weeks, leaving the issue open for further judicial consideration.
✔️ SC – Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & ors. vs Goa University [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 43441/2025]
🔥📛 HC directs assessee to deposit Rs. 5 lakh to unblock ITC; department to pass order on SCN expeditiously
➡️ The department alleged that the assessee wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of fake invoices and issued a notice in Form DRC-01.
➡️ ITC was claimed on genuine invoices issued by suppliers, which were duly reflected in Form GSTR-2A, making the credit legitimate.
➡️ Pending adjudication, the assessee’s Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) was blocked under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules.
➡️ To balance interests, the assessee was directed to deposit ₹5 lakhs in cash as a precondition for unblocking the ITC.
➡️ Upon such deposit, the blocked credit in the ECL was to be unblocked, and the authority was directed to pass a final order on merits expeditiously.
✔️ Madras HC – Tvl. Guruvammal Tex v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) – II [W.P. (MD) No. 21209 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC dismissed writ petition as assessee failed to approach it within time limit specified under GST Act
➡️ The Assessing Authority raised demand under Section 74 by disallowing ITC, citing that the supplier failed to discharge its GST liability by not filing returns for transactions with the assessee.
➡️ The issue involved factual disputes—whether ITC could be denied solely due to the supplier’s default—which required detailed appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence.
➡️ Such factual determinations fall within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority under Section 107, which has the power to examine and reassess the evidence.
➡️ Since the dispute was fact-intensive, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was not considered the proper remedy. The assessee should have pursued the statutory appellate route, subject to pre-deposit under Section 107(6).
➡️ The impugned order was passed on 25.02.2025, but the writ was filed only on 13.06.2025, beyond the limitation period under Section 107(1). Hence, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, reiterating that appeal was the appropriate course.
✔️ Orissa HC – Savitri Industries v. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST, Cuttack [W.P.(C) No. 17292 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC dismissed writ petition as assessee was involved in fraudulent availment of ITC by giving OTP to a known person
➡️ Authorities confirmed demand of ineligible ITC of ₹1.14 crore and additional tax liability of ₹8.19 crore arising from mismatches between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.
➡️ The petitioner claimed that his GSTIN was misused by third parties, alleging he had shared his OTP only for suspension of registration.
➡️ Based on the OTP shared by the petitioner, seven firms were created, collectively availing fraudulent ITC exceeding ₹50 crore.
➡️ Court held that by voluntarily sharing his OTP, the petitioner could not plead complete innocence and hence could not maintain a writ petition to challenge the impugned orders.
➡️ The High Court clarified it cannot conduct factual investigations into fraudulent ITC; such matters involving misuse of OTP require police investigation, not writ adjudication.
✔️ Delhi HC – Radhey Traders v. Assistant Commissioner Laxmi Nagar Division CGST Delhi East Commissionerate [W.P. (C) nos. 9371 & 9572 of 2025]
🔥📛 Rectification application to be decided after hearing party if decision is to go against said party: HC
➡️ The assessee received a show cause notice (SCN) raising demand under various heads, filed a reply, but the authority confirmed the demand without favoring the assessee.
➡️ The assessee moved an application under Section 161 of the GST Act seeking rectification of the impugned order.
➡️ The rectification application was rejected outright without affording the assessee any opportunity of being heard.
➡️ As per the third proviso to Section 161, principles of natural justice must be followed, particularly where an adverse decision is contemplated.
➡️ The rejection order was set aside, and the matter remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to re-decide the rectification application after giving proper hearing to the assessee.
✔️ Delhi HC – Mark Agencies v. Department of Trade and Taxes [W.P. (C) No. 9700 of 2025]
