LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 28.05.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC seeks Revenue’s reply on coverage under Heading 9993 in ITC-denial to pharma-manufacturer
➡️ The Delhi High Court issued a notice in a case where a pharmaceutical company challenged the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the tax authorities.
➡️ The Revenue claimed that the company falls under Heading 9993 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), which covers exempt healthcare services, and therefore is not entitled to ITC.
➡️ The High Court found the issue legally significant and worthy of deeper examination, indicating that the matter requires consideration.
➡️ The Court directed the Revenue to file a counter-affidavit limited to the legal question and to explain how the petitioner’s activities fall under Heading 9993, along with any relevant case law they rely upon.
➡️ Until further hearing, scheduled for September 15, 2025, the Court stayed any coercive action against the pharmaceutical company.
✔️ Delhi HC – Crecer Healthcare LLP vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi West and Anr [W.P.(C) 6224/2025]
🔥📛 Stays GST levy on manufacturer’s discount received by retailer via credit note
➡️ The Delhi High Court has stayed a GST demand and penalty of approximately ₹9.85 crores imposed on a retailer dealing in household appliances and electronics.
➡️ The tax authorities claimed that discounts received by the retailer through credit notes from the manufacturer were actually payments for providing a service—specifically, helping boost the manufacturer’s sales.
➡️ The retailer contested this claim, arguing that there was no supply of service or valid consideration involved, and hence, no tax liability arose.
➡️ The High Court noted that, at first glance, such discounts do not seem to be payments for services provided by the retailer.
➡️ As a result, the Court stayed the tax demand and penalty, issued a notice to the tax department, and scheduled the next hearing for September 25, 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – VARDHMAN ELECTRONICS vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER [W.P.(C) 6334/2025]
🔥📛 Madras HC to examine if TR-6 challan is valid document for ITC; Grants interim-relief
➡️ Data Patterns, the petitioner, filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court because the tax authorities did not accept the TR-6 challan as valid proof for claiming IGST credit on imports.
➡️ The Madras High Court took note of the issue and issued a notice to the Revenue department.
➡️ The Court granted an interim stay on recovery actions against the petitioner and allowed them to request an extension of this interim relief if needed.
✔️ Madras HC – Data Patterns India Limited vs Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax, Office Of The Commissioner Of GST and Central Excise [WP No. 18161 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Quashes demand sans hearing over ITC-enhancement, upon payment of certain GST dues
➡️ The Madras High Court quashed a GST adjudication order due to a violation of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a personal hearing before the order was passed.
➡️ Initially, a Show Cause Notice was issued, and later a corrigendum was issued that increased the amount of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed.
➡️ Following the corrigendum, a final order under Section 74 of the CGST Act was passed, confirming the demand for tax, interest, and penalty for the Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2021-22.
➡️ The High Court found procedural lapses, especially the denial of a personal hearing, and decided to remand the case back to the GST authorities for fresh consideration.
➡️ The remand was made conditional upon the assessee paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the court order, after which the impugned order would be considered set aside.
✔️ Madras HC – Regma Ceramics Limited Vs. Superintendent of GST & Central Excise and Ors. [W.P. No. 9260 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Directs refund with interest on deposit mistakenly made in ECL citing delay in deficiency-memo issuance
➡️ The Delhi High Court directed the GST Department to refund Rs. 3.3 crores, which was mistakenly deposited in the Electronic Cash Ledger by an assessee registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), along with 6% interest.
➡️ The Court held that the Department retained the amount unlawfully, as it failed to issue a deficiency memo within the 15-day limit under Rule 90 after receiving the refund application.
➡️ Although the assessee withdrew the refund application after receiving the deficiency memo, the memo itself was issued nearly two years late, making it invalid under the rules.
➡️ The Revenue claimed the refund was not processed due to the assessee’s failure to reapply, but the Court found this unjustified since the initial application was not properly processed in time.
➡️ The Court ordered the refund by May 30, 2025, warning that 18% interest per annum would apply from June 1 if delayed, but denied interest for the period when the refund application was withdrawn.
✔️ Delhi HC – Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner State Tax Delhi & anr. [W.P.(C) 5088/2024]
🔥📛 SLP to be admitted as High Court declined to entertain challenge based on circulars not raised during adjudication: SC
➡️ The case concerns the levy of GST on extruded unfried or uncooked snack pellets.
➡️ The assessee did not raise the issue of non-taxability before the adjudicating authority during the initial adjudication process.
➡️ A writ petition was later filed, arguing that tax was not leviable before 27-07-2023 based on Circulars No. 200/12/2023-GST and 235/29/2024-GST.
➡️ The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the issue should have been raised at the adjudication stage.
➡️ The Supreme Court admitted the Special Leave Petition, condoning the delay despite the procedural lapse.
✔️ SC – Marudhar Food Products v. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Division [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 5837 of 2025]
