LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 29.04.2025
|
🔥📛 Madras HC restrains Revenue from passing orders in SCN taxing corporate-guarantee retrospectively ➡️ The Madras High Court has granted an injunction restraining the revenue department from passing orders based on show cause notices (SCNs) issued to a company for a period of five years, demanding GST on a corporate guarantee (CG) furnished by the company to banks on behalf of its associate company. ➡️ The court has directed the assessee company to participate in the proceedings before the revenue department. It has also made a prima facie observation that retrospective taxability in this context is bad in law. ➡️ The company’s challenge pertains to five financial years, starting from 2018-2019 to 2022-2023. During this period, the bank guarantee (BG) was renewed year on year. ➡️ It is important to note that the company’s challenge is specifically restricted to the show cause notices and not to Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST. This circular clarified the taxability of corporate guarantees under GST. ➡️ The case highlights the ongoing legal disputes and complexities surrounding the application of GST, particularly in relation to corporate guarantees and retrospective tax demands. ✔️ Madras HC – Lalitha Castle Private Limited v. State Tax Officer- Group-V [The information is source based] |
|
🔥📛 HC: Appeal before Appellate Authority against registration-cancellation after 1 year not condonable ➡️ The Jharkhand High Court upheld the cancellation of the GST registration of a partnership firm due to the firm’s failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The cancellation was effective from February 28, 2022. ➡️ A notice in Form GST REG-17/31 was issued to the firm, seeking to cancel its registration as a partnership firm. ➡️ The firm filed an appeal against the cancellation order, but it was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of being time-barred as per Section 107 of the CGST Act. ➡️ The High Court found that the appeal against the cancellation order was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The order was dated July 8, 2022, but the appeal was filed on September 29, 2023, which is after the normal period of three months within which appeals under Section 107 are required to be filed. ➡️ The High Court held that there was no perversity in the cancellation order and no necessity to interfere with the appellate order. The appeal was filed beyond the statutory period, and hence, the writ petition was dismissed. ✔️ Jharkhand HC – M.N. Ghosh & Sons vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST & Ors. [W.P.(T) No. 3408 of 2024] |
|
🔥📛 HC: Notification No. 56/2023 extending deadline for issuing orders within statutory & Constitutional framework ➡️ The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-CT, finding it to be within the framework of the GST Act and the Constitution. ➡️ The Court observed that the powers exercised under Section 168A of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 were appropriate, considering the exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the assessee’s writ petition was dismissed. ➡️ The assessee argued that the notification and the subsequent assessment order, which was passed in the extended time, did not align with the purpose and spirit of Section 168A. They claimed that the post-pandemic recovery period and the adequate time already provided for compliance under earlier notifications were not considered. ➡️ The revenue department contended that the assessment order was passed within the statutory framework. They argued that the failure to verify specific documents such as GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, offset summaries, and GSTR-9 does not invalidate the order. ➡️ After considering both submissions, the High Court ruled in favor of the revenue, stating that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice or the assessee’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. ✔️ Madras HC – NVR Sons vs UOI & ors [W.P.(MD)No. 9947 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 HC: Dismisses writ invoking grounds of cross-empowerment basis Assessee’s failure to respond or appear for personal-hearing ➡️ The Patna High Court (HC) dismissed a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging an order passed by the State GST authorities. ➡️ The State GST authorities initiated scrutiny of the assessee’s returns under Section 61 of the GST Act based on a letter from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGST) in Kolkata, which was already investigating the matter. ➡️ The assessee argued that parallel proceedings by the State should be precluded due to the ongoing investigation by the Central Agency (DGGST). ➡️ The HC rejected the assessee’s submission, noting that the assessing authority had clearly mentioned in the impugned order that notices (Online ASMT-10, Reminder-1, and Reminder-2) were issued but the assessee failed to submit a reply in GST ASMT-11 within the stipulated time. Additionally, the assessee did not reverse the ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC). ➡️ The HC distinguished the precedents cited by the assessee based on the specific facts of the case, implying that the cited precedents were not applicable to the current situation. ✔️ Patna HC – CTS Industries Limited vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Others [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1898 of 2023] |
