LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 31.10.2025
🔥📛 SC stays operation of assessment order imposing tax on JDA; Issues notice
➡️ The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the Assistant Commissioner’s order that levied GST on a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) between a developer and landowners, pending final adjudication.
➡️ The Assessee approached the Apex Court after the Bombay High Court dismissed its writ petition on the ground that an effective appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available.
➡️ While dismissing the writ, the High Court noted that a JDA may not necessarily amount to a taxable “supply” under GST—but held that this determination required factual analysis by appellate authorities based on the specific terms of the agreement.
➡️ The primary question concerns whether the transfer of development rights and related obligations in a JDA constitute a “supply” under Section 7 of the CGST Act, thereby attracting GST liability.
➡️ The Supreme Court’s interim stay provides temporary relief to the Assessee and indicates that the taxability of JDAs under GST—particularly the timing and nature of “supply”—remains a debatable and evolving issue, warranting close attention by industry participants.
✔️ SC – Arham Infra Developers AOP vs UOI & ors [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26910/2025]
🔥📛 SC to examine if non-mention of DIN renders the orders invalid; Stays HC-order
➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that any communication, notice, or order issued under GST law without a valid Document Identification Number (DIN) is non est in law (i.e., legally void), as it undermines transparency and accountability in tax administration.
➡️ The High Court reaffirmed its earlier rulings, emphasizing that non-mention or omission of a DIN on orders uploaded on the GST portal invalidates such orders, thereby necessitating their quashing or setting aside.
➡️ The Supreme Court, upon being approached, has stayed the operation of the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order, thereby temporarily suspending its effect while the matter is under judicial consideration.
➡️ The stay was granted with the specific condition that no coercive action shall be taken against the assessee during the pendency of the proceedings, thus maintaining interim protection.
➡️ The Supreme Court’s stay introduces uncertainty regarding the enforceability of the DIN requirement for GST communications, meaning that while the issue is sub judice, tax authorities and assessees should exercise caution—treating the matter as pending final judicial resolution.
✔️ SC – Assistant Commissioner (CT), Eluru CGST Division & anr vs Novelty Reddy and Reddy Motors Pvt. Ltd. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 28105/2025]
🔥📛 Kerala HC grants interim relief to UBI retirees from GST on health insurance premiums
➡️ The Kerala High Court granted interim relief to retired employees of Union Bank of India, staying the levy of GST @18% on the premium payable for renewal of the group health insurance policy for FY 2025–26.
➡️ The Court permitted the petitioners to renew their health insurance policies for the current policy year by paying only the base premium amount, excluding the GST component.
➡️ The Court clarified that this relief is interim in nature and will remain subject to further orders pending final adjudication of the writ petitions.
➡️ The key issue before the Court concerns whether GST is legally leviable on the premium paid by retired employees under a bank-arranged group health insurance scheme, raising questions on the nature of supply and the taxability of employer-facilitated insurance for retirees.
➡️ The order signals potential judicial scrutiny of GST on employee welfare benefits, particularly post-retirement schemes, and may influence future interpretations regarding taxability of group insurance premiums under the GST framework.
✔️ Kerala HC – Vinod Mukundan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) NO. 36636 OF 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Non-consideration of reply filed beyond time, prior to passing of order, invalid
➡️ The Madras High Court held that failure to provide a personal hearing before passing an adverse order constitutes a violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/TNGST Acts and breaches principles of natural justice.
➡️ The assessee had filed a reply in Form DRC-06 against the DRC-01 notice but was not granted any personal hearing thereafter. The assessing authority proceeded to issue a demand order for excess ITC claim without further engagement.
➡️ The Revenue contended that, since no express request for hearing was made after filing the reply, the officer was justified in passing the order, relying on Bright Steels. The Court rejected this, clarifying that Section 75(4) mandates a hearing even without a specific request if an adverse decision is contemplated.
➡️ The Court distinguished Bright Steels on factual grounds, noting that in that case, multiple opportunities for hearing had been provided. In contrast, the present case involved no hearing after the reply, rendering the order procedurally defective.
➡️ The Court quashed the order only to the extent of “Defect No. 2” concerning the excess ITC claim and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. It directed the Revenue to issue a fresh order on merits within three months after duly affording the assessee a personal hearing.
✔️ Madras HC – Sri Vigneshwara Trading v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Avarampalayam Circle, Coimbatore [W.P. No. 37084 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Quashes demand on corporate guarantee for failure to consider Assessee’s contentions; Remands matter
➡️ The case concerned the levy of GST on a corporate guarantee extended by an assessee to a related entity without consideration. The Revenue treated the guarantee as a taxable supply and imposed GST at 1% of the guarantee amount under Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
➡️ The assessee contended that, as the recipient entity was eligible for full input tax credit (ITC), the transaction value was effectively nil, and hence no GST was payable. Reliance was placed on CBIC Circular Nos. 199/11/2023-GST and 210/4/2024-GST, which clarify valuation of corporate guarantees between related parties.
➡️ The Assessing Officer failed to consider these circulars or the assessee’s detailed submissions and proceeded to confirm the tax demand, without examining the applicability of the clarificatory CBIC guidance.
➡️ The Court emphasized that administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must consider all material contentions and binding departmental circulars. Non-consideration of a valid defense or binding clarification renders the order legally unsustainable.
➡️ The High Court quashed the assessment order for non-application of mind and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the authority to re-examine the assessee’s submissions in light of the cited CBIC circulars and issue a reasoned order on merits.
✔️ Madras HC – Amman Try Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer – V (Roving Squad) [W.P. (MD) No. 20121 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Order confirming demand higher than SCN is ‘without jurisdiction’, runs contrary to section 75(7)
➡️ The Karnataka High Court held that an adjudicating authority cannot confirm a tax, interest, or penalty demand exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice (SCN), as per Section 75(7) of the CGST Act.
➡️ The Order-in-Original confirming a GST demand of ₹6.93 crore—against an SCN proposing only ₹2.49 crore—was found to be contrary to law, since it went beyond both the quantum and the grounds stated in the SCN.
➡️ The Court emphasized that an assessee must be given clear notice of the case they have to meet; confirming a higher demand or introducing new grounds without notice violates principles of natural justice.
➡️ The assessee’s plea for rectification of the excessive demand was wrongly rejected, as the issue concerned a fundamental jurisdictional error in exceeding statutory limits under Section 75(7).
➡️ The impugned order was quashed, and the case remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration strictly within the confines of the SCN and the provisions of Section 75(7).
✔️ Karnataka HC – Prestige Nottinghill Investments v. UOI & ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 18888 OF 2025]
