LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 29.05.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC to examine if data-hosting services provided by Amazon tantamount to export
➡️ Amazon Data Services India Private Limited has filed several writ petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking GST refunds for its export of data hosting services.
➡️ The company argues that its claim is supported by GST Circular No. 232/26/2024-GST, issued on September 10, 2024, which clarifies the tax treatment of such services.
➡️ It also highlights that the Revenue Department, in previous orders related to Amazon’s own cases, has acknowledged these transactions as exports.
➡️ The Revenue Department requested more time to obtain necessary instructions on the matter.
✔️ Delhi HC – Amazon Data Services India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate [W.P.(C) 7191/2025]
🔥📛 Applicability of GST on royalty to come up before Justice Nagarathna
➡️ The issue concerns the applicability of GST on royalty payments made for mining limestone in the State of Meghalaya.
➡️ The Meghalaya High Court granted an interim stay on the GST demand, noting that the larger legal issue is already under consideration by the Supreme Court.
➡️ The High Court observed that the outcome of the ongoing case before the Supreme Court will likely influence the decision in this matter.
➡️ A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that States have the power to impose taxes on mineral rights.
➡️ In a dissenting opinion, Justice B.V. Nagarathna expressed that mining royalty should be considered a form of tax.
✔️ SC – Meghalaya HC – Meghalaya Cements Ltd. vs. UOI [TRANSFER PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S).1492/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Explains framework for 6%/ 9% interest on refund delayed for deficiency-memo non-issuance
➡️ The Delhi High Court held that the taxpayer (petitioner) is entitled to interest on delayed GST refunds, especially when the deficiency memo was not issued within the 15-day time limit under Rule 90, which caused part of the delay.
➡️ The Court clarified the interest scheme: 6% per annum is payable from the date of the first refund application (FORM GST RFD-01) till the second application, excluding the time taken by the petitioner (74 days) to respond to the deficiency memo; 9% per annum becomes applicable after 60 days from the second application.
➡️ The Revenue was directed to pay interest at 6% for the initial period and 9% thereafter, after adjusting for the interest already paid.
➡️ The Court noted that the refund was only processed following an Appellate Authority’s direction and not proactively by the Revenue, and that too without paying full interest despite a writ court’s earlier order.
➡️ Referring to Sections 54 and 56 read with Rule 90 and relying on the precedent in Bansal International, the Court presented a flow chart for calculating interest on delayed refunds and emphasized procedural lapses by the Revenue in issuing deficiency memos.
✔️ Delhi HC – G S Industries vs Commissioner of Central Tax and GST Delhi West [W.P.(C) 7485/2024]
🔥📛 HC: Writ not invokable for serious ITC frauds involving network of 160 fake firms
➡️ The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition involving 160 firms accused of issuing fake invoices without actual goods, amounting to Rs. 8,393 crores in taxable value and over Rs. 1,000 crores in wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC).
➡️ Investigation revealed that all these firms were linked via the same PAN, mobile numbers, and email IDs, forming a network of fake or non-existent entities registered on the GST Portal to fraudulently avail ITC.
➡️ The assessee claimed the case was already decided in 2022 when a similar show cause notice led to a demand of Rs. 16 lakhs being dropped, but the Court found the current case involved a much larger fraud network and significantly more serious allegations.
➡️ The High Court emphasized that the impugned order concerns a broader and more serious fraudulent ITC scam, which is distinct from the earlier case cited by the petitioner.
➡️ Since the demand order is appealable under law, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority instead of invoking writ jurisdiction and allowed adjustment of the earlier pre-deposit against the new proceedings.
✔️ Delhi HC- Preeti Khanna (proprietor Hiya Sales) vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST [W.P.(C) 7044/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Directs fresh adjudication due to non-service of notice on firm obtaining refund
➡️ The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed a case where a refund was rejected because an earlier refund had been granted to the assessee’s firm registered under a different GSTIN in Uttar Pradesh.
➡️ The Department had filed an appeal against the refund, but the appellate order was passed ex-parte without properly notifying the assessee.
➡️ The Court noted that no notice of the appeal was uploaded on the GST portal, and there was no mention of how or whether a personal hearing was provided—virtually or physically.
➡️ It was also observed that there was no evidence showing that any notice was served on the petitioner or their authorized representative.
➡️ As a result, the High Court quashed the refund rejection orders and directed the appellate authority to re-hear the appeal after giving the assessee a fair opportunity for a hearing.
✔️ Madhya Pradesh HC – Ashirwad Industries vs. Union of India and Ors [WP-7056-2025]
