LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 31.07.2025
🔥📛 HC: Rejects corresponding-date vis-à-vis corresponding-month analogy while reckoning ‘three-months’; Upholds Limitation
➡️ The Delhi High Court held that a show cause notice (SCN) dated 30th November 2024 was within the limitation period prescribed under Section 73(2), since the order was passed on 28th February 2025. The Court reasoned that “three months” means three British calendar months—December, January, and February—thereby validating the SCN.
➡️ The Delhi HC disagreed with the Andhra Pradesh HC decision in M/s Cotton Corporation of India, which struck down an identically dated SCN as time-barred by two days. The Delhi HC rejected the AP HC’s method of counting “corresponding date of corresponding month” as the cutoff, emphasizing a broader calendar-month interpretation instead.
➡️ Even if the limitation is calculated in terms of number of days (90 days), the SCN dated 30th November 2024 remains valid as it falls exactly 90 days before 28th February 2025, reinforcing that it is not barred by time.
➡️ The Court clarified that the limitation on adjournments under Section 75(5) does not imply a mandatory right to three adjournments. Instead, adjournments are discretionary and must be based on sufficient cause shown by the assessee, reinforcing a practical and fact-based approach.
➡️ Upon examining the full records, the Court found that the petitioner was given adequate opportunities to file replies and attend personal hearings. Hence, the challenge to the SCN and subsequent proceedings was dismissed on grounds of maintainability and procedural fairness.
✔️ Delhi HC – Tata Play Limited. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Class II [W.P.(C) 4781/2025 & CM APPL. 22012/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Service through portal to a cancelled dealer not valid; Exempts Assessee from 25% pre-deposit
➡️ The Court emphasized that under Section 169 of the CGST Act, proper service of notice is mandatory. Merely uploading the notice on the GST portal — without sending it via RPAD or serving it personally — is insufficient, especially when the taxpayer’s registration has been cancelled.
➡️ Since the Assessee could not access the GST portal post-cancellation of registration, the ex parte assessment orders were passed without granting the Assessee a fair chance to respond, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
➡️ The Single Judge’s direction requiring 25% pre-deposit of the disputed tax as a precondition to quash the orders was overturned. The Division Bench found that imposing such a condition was unjustified given the flawed service of notice.
➡️ Recognizing the procedural lapse, the High Court set aside the assessment orders unconditionally, without any requirement of pre-deposit, acknowledging the Assessee’s inability to respond due to lack of proper notice.
➡️ The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The officer has been directed to issue fresh notices and pass orders strictly in accordance with law, ensuring the Assessee is granted a fair opportunity to be heard.
✔️ Madras HC – Tvl. Dimora Vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) & Ors [W.A.(MD) Nos. 1934 and 1935 of 2025]
🔥📛 Dept. can’t withhold NOC for fresh GST registration if appeal filed against demand: HC
➡️ The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against an order-in-original and duly paid the mandatory 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount.
➡️ As per Section 107(7), once the appeal is filed and the mandatory pre-deposit is made, the recovery of the balance amount is automatically stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
➡️ With the stay in effect, the petitioner could no longer be legally considered a defaulter solely on the basis of the challenged demand.
➡️ The department’s refusal to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for fresh GST registration—on grounds of pending demand—was held to be unjustified when such demand is under valid appellate challenge.
➡️ The court directed the tax authorities to process the application for fresh GST registration and issue the NOC, reaffirming that procedural rights under appeal provisions must be respected.
✔️ Delhi HC – Sarabjeet Singh v. Commissioner of SGST [W.P. (C) No. 10392 of 2025]
🔥📛 SLP dismissed against HC ruling that writ not maintainable as appeal remedy available against Sec. 74 order
➡️ The petitioner had an undisputed statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, against the final order passed under Section 74 (relating to tax evasion or fraud).
➡️ The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the existence of an effective alternate remedy (i.e., appeal) bars invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
➡️ The High Court found no exceptional grounds, such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction, that could have justified bypassing the appeal mechanism.
➡️ The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating it did not intend to interfere with the judgment dismissing the writ petition, reaffirming the importance of exhausting statutory remedies.
➡️ The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed, reinforcing that taxpayers should first approach the appellate authority before seeking recourse through constitutional writ remedies.
✔️ SC – Adinath Enterprises v. Joint Commissioner Central Tax GST Delhi East [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17635 of 2025]
