Top Stories GST Case Digest: Top 50 High Court Cases from 2024 2024 saw numerous significant judgments pertaining to GST, rendered by the High Courts around the nation By Avinash Kurungot – On January 6, 2025 4:09 pm – 28 mins read The introduction of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) in 2017 brought in a dynamic change to India’s indirect taxation regime, devising a unified tax structure to promote ease of doing business while streamlining the fiscal framework. Much like the implementation of any new legislative reform, the introduction of GST too brought with it a host of interpretive and procedural challenges, leading to extensive litigation. Presently, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal ( GSTAT ) has not yet begun entertaining matters of appeal, requiring the jurisdictional High Courts across the country to assume the role of the second appellate authority and hear such matters. Over the years, High Courts across the country have played a pivotal role in resolving disputes and shaping GST jurisprudence in the absence of a fully functional Appellate Tribunal. Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here Matters being so, the High Courts have been vested with a dual-responsibility of adjudicating tax-related disputes while not faltering in their primary role.

This dual burden has contributed to bottlenecks in the due disposal of writ petitions and other critical non-GST matters, significantly stretching judicial resources. The impending commencement of the GSTAT promises to alleviate this pressure, offering a dedicated forum for appellate review of GST disputes. Nevertheless, the precedential value of the judgments pronounced by the High Courts shall set the tone for the form of adjudication adopted by the GSTAT. This compilation of the Top 50 High Court cases on GST from 2024 encapsulates the critical role played by the judiciary in addressing complex GST issues, ranging from classification and valuation to procedural compliance and constitutional questions. As we transition to a more structured appellate mechanism, this compilation serves as a testament to the judiciary’s efforts in safeguarding justice and promoting uniformity in the application of GST laws.

Section 16(4) GST ITC Availment Time Limit is November, Applies Retrospectively from Inception of GST: Kerala HC M/S M.TRADE LINKS vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1215 In a regime-shaking decision, the Kerala High Court has held that the time limit to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is till 30th November in each financial year, with effect from 01.07.2017, the inception of GST, for the petitioners of the case. “The time limit for furnishing the return for the month of September is to be treated as 30th November in each financial year with effect from 01.07.2017, in respect of the petitioners who had filed their returns for the month of September on or before 30th November, and their claim for ITC should be processed, if they are otherwise eligible for ITC”, the Single Bench of the Kerala High Court stated, concluding the matter. Taxability of Corporate Guarantees between Related Persons under GST: Punjab & Haryana HC stays Controversial Circular ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 943 A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued an interim order staying a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) concerning the tax treatment of corporate guarantees exchanged between related parties.

The Division bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, granted an interim stay on the effect and operation of Item No.2 of the impugned Circular dated October 27, 2023. This stay allows the Appellate Authority to proceed with the case independently without being influenced by the controversial clarification. The core issue revolves around whether the provision of a corporate guarantee without consideration should be deemed a taxable supply under the CGST Act. GST Appellate Authority competent by Law to Decide Question of Jurisdiction of GST Order: Telangana HC M/s Jain housing and constructions limited vs additional commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2015 In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has held that the appellate authority is competent to decide questions of jurisdiction against GST orders. The court, presided over by Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, addressed the primary contention of the petitioner concerning the jurisdictional competence of the officer.

The court noted that the issue of jurisdiction was not a purely legal question but rather a mixed question of fact and law. This distinction is important because, as the court observed, matters that involve both fact and law are best suited to be decided by the appellate authority established under the statutory framework. GST Payer cannot be Deprived of Benefit due to Non-Constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal: Patna HC stays Recovery GTL Infrastructure Limited vs Good and Services Tax Network CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2100 The Patna High Court stayed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) recovery proceedings, ruling that taxpayers cannot be deprived of their legal rights due to the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal ( GSTAT ). The Court further directed that once the Tribunal is constituted, the petitioner must file an appeal under Section 112 within the prescribed time. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal, the authorities will be free to proceed with recovery actions. Additionally, the bench instructed to release the bank account attached if any. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, ensuring the petitioner retains the statutory right to appeal without facing immediate recovery actions. Non-Consideration of Additional Reply and Hearing Request: Madras HC quashes TNGST Order GEN Engineering Works vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1906 The Madras High Court ( HC ), in a recent case, quashed an order passed under Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( TNGST Act ) noting that the said order was passed without considering the additional reply and hearing request made by the petitioner, which is violative of principles of natural justice.

Upon hearing the arguments from both sides, the single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy took into consideration the sequence of events and the submissions made. It observed that while the respondent had issued a show-cause notice and the petitioner had filed a reply on 07.02.2024, the additional reply submitted on 24.04.2024 was not considered when the impugned order was passed. More importantly, the petitioner’s request for a personal hearing, made explicitly in the additional reply, was also ignored. The Court noted that these oversights violated the principles of natural justice, which require that all relevant submissions and requests from the parties be considered before an order is passed. In this case, the failure to take into account the additional reply and the request for a personal hearing amounted to a procedural lapse. Directions given by High Courts should be followed by Authorities: Gujarat HC directs to follow orders in IGST Refund Cases REAL PRINCE SPINTEX PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 492 The Gujarat High Court directed to follow Court orders in Integrated Goods and Services Tax ( IGST ) refund cases and observed that directions given by High Courts should be followed by Authorities.

A Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D Karia and Niral R Mehta observed that “The respondent-authorities and the respondent-authorities had no reason to take a different view than the directions issued by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-authorities are bound by the directions issued by this Court and therefore, the impugned order is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent-authorities are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court while sanctioning the refund of IGST after deducting the differential duty drawback with 7% simple interest.” Delhi High Court limits GST Registration Cancellation to suspension date, rejects Retrospective Effect due to lack of specific reasons in SCN BALAJI INDUSTRIES (VIPIN KUMAR) vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI NORTH COMMISSIONERATE & ANR CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2088 The High Court of Delhi held that the cancellation of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration cannot be applied retrospectively if the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) does not clearly specify the reasons for such action. The court directed that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration be effective from the date of suspension i.e., May 24, 2022, instead of the retrospective date of September 11, 2017, as initially ordered by the tax authorities. In result, the division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta modified the impugned order issued by the respondent revenue, directing that the cancellation of the GST registration take effect from the date of suspension, May 24, 2022, rather than the retrospective date of September 11, 2017.

This bench stressed the need for tax authorities to issue well-reasoned SCNs that provide taxpayers with adequate grounds and opportunity to address the issues raised. It also stressed that retrospective cancellations or penalties must be backed by clear and specific reasoning. Madras High Court sets aside GST Order against deceased person, Grants Heir Fresh Hearing Conditionally S.R.Steels vs The Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2021 In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court set aside the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) order issued against the deceased person by the State Tax Officer. On condition, the tribunal granted the legal heir a fresh opportunity to present the case. A single bench led by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the impugned order was issued to a deceased person, making it liable to be set aside. Given that the petitioner was the legal heir, the court deemed it just and necessary to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present the case. The court ruled that the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, conditional upon the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks.

Madras HC sets aside GST order passed without providing Opportunity to Hearing Tenkasi Shencottai Taluk Agricultural Co Op Society vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 840 The Madras High Court set aside the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) order passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The Court found that the orders had been passed before the petitioner filed a reply to the notices issued under the provisions of the respective GST enactments to the petitioner. A single bench of Justice C Saravanan found that the orders had been passed before the petitioner filed a reply to the notices issued under the provisions of the respective GST enactments to the petitioner. The court set aside the impugned orders and the case is remanded back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and under law. Further held that “the impugned orders, which stands quashed, shall be treated as a corrigendum to show cause notice issued earlier. The petitioner shall file a consolidated reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

Alternative Remedies to be Exhausted before Approaching HC to Quash GST Demand SCN: Bombay HC Oberoi Constructions Ltd vs The Union of India CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2340 The Bombay High Court was recently faced with multiple petitions pertaining to the quashing of demand notices issued under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Acts, filed by separate entities involved in the construction business. The High Court advised the Petitioners to first approach all alternate remedies available to them to contest their case before approaching the High Court for relief. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice M.S. Sonak & Justice Jitendra Jain observed that whether tax demands purported against the Petitioners concerns any activity in relation to the functions of the Municipality under Article 243W may only be determinable through the proper adjudicatory process and not by the High Court exercising extraordinary and summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the same may require examination of factual aspects that cannot be conveniently undertaken by the High Court at this stage.

Parallel GST Proceedings: Telangana High Court quashes Demand Order of State GST Dept already passed by Central GST Authority MS Dott Services Limited vs State of Telengana CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 833 A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court recently overturned a GST Demand Order dated 30.12.2023 under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Relying on Section 6 of the CGST Act, Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice N Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court concluded that initiating subsequent proceedings on the same facts and issues was impermissible. It was observed that the State Authorities’ grounds for initiating the demand order were not sustainable, citing the petitioner’s efforts to inform the authorities and the awareness reflected in the pleadings.

Form GST MOV 07 u/s 129(3) provides 7 Days for Replying to SCN: Andhra Pradesh HC axes Penalty Order for Procedural Violation Sfc Environmental Technologies Limited vs Union Of India and Others CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2575 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati recently dismissed a Penalty Order purported by the Revenue, observing that Form GST MOV 07 issued under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( CGST Act ) stipulates provision of seven days time to issue a reply towards a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) issued for the same purpose. The Bench observed that the SCN had been issued on 29.10.2024 while the penalty order was passed on 05.11.2024, before exhaustion of the time limit of seven days as statutorily provided to the Petitioner by Form GST MOV 07 issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. Noting a clear procedural violation, coupled with violation of principles of natural justice in providing adequate opportunity, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the penalty order dated 05.11.2024 and remanded the matter back to the Revenue to pass necessary orders after providing due opportunity to the Petitioner to make out their case. Excess GST Amount Paid Voluntarily due to System Error: Gujarat HC allows Refund without Interest MESSRS AALIDHRA TEXCRAFT ENGINEERS & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2576 Recently, the Gujarat High Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) refund to the assessee who deposited excess tax amount of Rs. 40 lakhs to the revenue due to system error without any interest. It was observed that “when the petitioner has deposited voluntarily the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-, the same would not be covered by the provisions of Section 54 of the GST Act and the same is required to be refunded by the respondent authorities as the same could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 54(1) of the GST Act.” GST Dept admits Violation of Personal Hearing mandated u/s 75(4): Madras HC Quashes Assessment Order Signet Industries Limited vs The State Tax officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2171 In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court quashed the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) assessment order after the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) department agreed that they indeed passed the order without providing a personal hearing opportunity which is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the Goods and Service ( GST ) Act, 2017. A single bench led by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the principles of natural justice were violated since no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted before passing the adverse assessment order.

The court observed that Section 75(4) mandates a personal hearing, which was not provided in this case. The court found that since the assessment order was set aside, the attachment of the bank account could not be sustained. Co-owner’s Consent Letter not Required in applying GST Registration when Electricity Bill proves Ownership: Allahabad HC Satya Dev Singh vs Union Of India CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2573 The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a co-owner’s consent letter is not mandatory for obtaining Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration if ownership of the property is established through an electricity bill issued in the GST registration applicant’s name. The appellate authority stated that since the electricity bill was in the respondent’s name, it fulfilled the ownership proof requirement under clause (a) of Form REG-01.

The bench stated that “The said contention of the counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected for the sole reason that the issue would be governed by clause (a), which prescribes that a document in support of the ownership of the premises is required in case of the owner, there is no mention of the resident being sole owner.” The court held that clause (c) pertains to scenarios where ownership is not established via documents like an electricity bill. Since the respondent had provided sufficient proof of ownership, the consent letter was deemed unnecessary. Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration Should be based on Objective Criteria, Not merely Non-Filing of Returns as it Affects ITC for Customers: Delhi HC MUKESH KUMAR SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GST CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1074 The High Court of Delhi has set a precedent bringing clarity and justification in cases of retrospective cancellation of GST registrations.

The High Court emphasised the need for objective criteria rather than solely relying on the non-filing of returns, highlighting the significant impact such cancellations can have on Input Tax Credit (ITC) for customers. In result, the division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja modified the retrospective cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, setting the effective date as August 18, 2021, the date of the SCN. However, the court clarified that the respondents were not precluded from taking further steps for recovery of any outstanding tax, penalty, or interest owed by the petitioner, provided proper procedures were followed. Delhi High Court rescinds Arrest of ITC Fraud-Accused Company Director, notes Discrepant Procedure by GST Dept KSHITIJ GHILDIYAL vs DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2519 The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to the arraigned director of a company accused of fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit ( ITC ), observing that the Respondent Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department had committed gross errors in following the procedural requirements to effectuate a valid arrest. Observing that the when the liberty of a person is at stake, the investigation/arresting agency must exercise overcaution, exactitude, and punctiliousness, the Delhi High Court rebuked the observation of the Magistrate order wherein it was merely noticed that the grounds of arrest had been explained to the accused persons and that the Investigating Officers had completed codal requirements and shown justifiable grounds of arrest without sufficient reasoning and application of mind.

GST proper officer must consider Reply Filed by assessee even after Multiple Hearings: Madras HC Tvl. Aarna Traders vs The Deputy State Tax Officer II CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2546 The Madras High Court has ruled that the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) officers must consider the replies filed by assessees, even if submitted after multiple hearings, while adjudicating tax disputes. The petitioner argued that the order violated principles of natural justice, as their reply was a valid response to the notice. The respondent contended that the reply merely referenced case laws without addressing the factual issues. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the petitioner’s reply, filed on March 15, 2024, was on record and clarified the disputed mismatch amounts. Ignoring the reply solely because it was submitted after multiple hearings was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. GST Liability Confirmed for Non-Furnishing of Documents Unrequested is Invalid: Madras HC Tvl. Slitina Metal Sales LLP vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1668 In a matter, the Madras High Court ruled that the GST ( goods and Service Tax ) liability confirmed for non-furnishing of documents not requested in the SCN ( Show Cause Notice ) is invalid.

The court remanded the matter for reconsideration. The high court observed that the impugned order confirmed the tax proposal on the second issue, citing the lack of proof for the movement of goods, such as lorry receipts and weighment slips. These documents were not required by the original GST show cause notice, which focused on different issues, stated the court. The matter was remanded back for reconsideration without any pre-deposit and permitted the assessee to submit an additional reply with all relevant documents related to the movement of goods within fifteen days of receiving the court’s order. Telangana HC Allows Standard Chartered Bank to File GST Returns in Other States, Waives Penalty and Interest for Credit Transfer M/s. Standard Chartered Bank vs $The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & others CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1640 The Telangana High Court has permitted Standard Chartered Bank to file Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) returns on another state’s GST portal due to technical glitches, allowing the transfer of credit without any penalty or interest.

The division bench of Justice Suyoj Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao opinionated that the very foundation of show cause notice itself is bad in law and the assumption of respondent No.2 that return could not have been filed in the GST portal of telangana was not flowing from Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action founded upon such notion was bad in law and deserves interference. GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A Mismatch: Madras HC sets aside GST Demand Order due to Lack of Reasoning, remands for Reconsideration Deva Enterprises vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1398 The Madras High Court has set aside a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter, granting the petitioner a personal hearing, on the grounds that the order was unreasonable and failed to consider the petitioner’s reply. The petition sought to quash the impugned order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, contending that the order was arbitrary and illegal, as it did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner regarding the mismatch between GSTR 3B and the auto-populated GSTR 2A returns. The single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that although the petitioner’s reply was extracted in the impugned order, the assessing officer merely recorded that the reply was not acceptable and confirmed the liability without providing any reasoning.

The court held that since the conclusion was not supported by reasons, the impugned order was unsustainable. Gujarat HC stays GST SCN issued on Transaction of Assignment of Long Term Leasehold Rights MAHAVEER WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS THROUGH PARTNER KAMAL J SHAH vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1663 In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court has stayed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regarding the transaction of assignment of long-term leasehold rights, citing a similar matter pending before the court. The representative of the petitioner, Mahaveer Housing and Logistics, submitted that the assessee received a notice in GST Form DRC-01 from the GST authorities for the financial year 2019-20. The notice called upon the assessee to explain why GST should not be levied on the transaction of assignment of long-term leasehold rights under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The counsel for the petitioner further informed the court that a similar case, Special Civil Application No. 11345 of 2023, is currently pending adjudication before the Gujarat High Court. The court also granted ad-interim relief, stating that no further proceedings shall continue pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice. The matter will be heard along with Special Civil Application and other related cases.

Direct service via email is permitted. This stay provides temporary relief to the petitioner until the court reaches a decision on the pending matters. Revenue cannot Levy Penalty on Belated GST Returns and then Disallow ITC due to Belated Filing: Madhya Pradesh HC M/S ANAND STEEL vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2483 The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the Revenue may not unfairly prejudice an Assessee by disallowing Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) citing delay in returns after already levying late fees for belated filing of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Returns. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court constituted by Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that a Right on ITC is created when a taxpayer duly fulfills all conditions as specified in Section 16(2) of the Act. Section 16(2), being a non obstante provision, would override any time limit imposed through the inserted SECTION 16(4). Centre acts on GST matter already taken up by State: Orissa HC stays SCN by Centre Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar vs Additional Commissioner of GST and CE, BBSR and others CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2491 In a recent interim order, the Orissa High Court stayed a show cause notice ( SCN ) issued by the Centre under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, in response to a petition filed by the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar.

In a recent interim order, the Orissa High Court stayed a show cause notice ( SCN ) issued by the Centre under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, in response to a petition filed by the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar. The High Court thus directed the opposite parties to obtain instructions on the matter. The bench stayed the impugned SCN until the next hearing, scheduled for January 16, 2025, thereby providing temporary relief to the petitioner. Madras High Court defers GST Adjudication on Seigniorage Fee, Mining Lease until Supreme Court Ruling on Royalty C.Srinivasa Moorthy vs The Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1254 In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court, considering the decision of this court in another case, deferred the orders of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) adjudication on Seigniorage Fee, Mining Lease until the Supreme Court Ruling of the Nine-judge bench on nature of Royalty.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that “In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to either the issue of seigniorage fee or mining lease. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of. Madras HC sets aside 300% Penalty for Belated GST Returns, Directs to Pass Fresh Order Considering Precedent M/s.Clean Switch India Pvt. Ltd vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1748 In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court set aside the penalty of 300% citing that the GST department did not consider the same High Court ruling that Section 27(4) Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax ( TNVAT ) cannot be invoked for belated filing of returns. The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy upheld the tax component but found that the imposition of a 300% penalty was unjustified due to the department’s failure to consider the binding precedent.

Consequently, the high court set aside the penalty and remanded the matter for reconsideration, instructing the respondent to issue a fresh order after providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to present their case, including a personal hearing. GST Appeal cannot be rejected for Failure to upload Soft Copy due to Technical Glitches as it is beyond Control: Madras HC M/s.Shivpad Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2013 A GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal cannot be rejected solely on the ground of failure to upload the soft copy due to technical glitches as it is beyond the control of the assessee, ruled the Madras High Court. It granted an opportunity for hearing. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy concluded that the appeal had been rejected solely because of the technical difficulty in uploading the soft copy. The court recognized that the delay in the appeal process was genuine and attributable to issues beyond the petitioner’s control. The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the petitioner an additional opportunity to file the appeal. The petitioner was directed to submit the appeal manually and upload the soft copy within 30 days from the date of the court order.

The court further instructed the appellate authority to accept the appeal without enforcing the limitation period, provided the other conditions were met. Delhi High Court strikes down Retrospective GST Cancellation as it does not satisfy CGST Section 29(2) ANWAR ALI vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST DELHI CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1795 In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed retrospective cancellation of GST as it does not satisfy the provisions under Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In this case, the writ petitioner, Anwar Ali, had registered his business with the GST authorities with effect from 29.12.2022. The petitioner had continued his business for more than four months, and later on, due to no more further transactions, he filed NIL GST returns. The bench, comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta, observed that the SCN does not meet the requisite standards of a show cause notice. It opined that the cancellation order did not specify why the petitioner’s GST registration was terminated. No Denial of GST ITC on Interest-Free Advance Receipts: Bombay HC in L&T, IHI Consortium Case L & T IHI Consortium vs Union of India CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2348 The Bombay High Court has held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on advance receipts. It was also observed that, “For such reason, when the petitioner satisfied the requirements of Section 31(3)(d) as also accepted by the revenue to be a tax paying document, it would not be correct in law that the petitioner is denied input tax credit, merely because the petitioner has not complied with the part of the provisions, namely sub-section (1) of Section 31 read with Rule 36. In any event, Rule 36 cannot control the operation of Section 31 being the substantive statutory provision.”

It was thus held by the Division Bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Jitendra Jain that, “in the peculiar facts of the case on the basis of Receipt Voucher issued by L&T in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to avail the Input Tax Credit under section 16 of the CGST/MGST Act.” GST Tribunal not constituted yet: Patna High Court stays recovery u/s 112(9) of BGST, Reduces Appeal Deposit to 10% M/s Maa Sunaina Construction Private Limited vs The Union of India through the Secretary CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2194 In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court granted relief by staying the recovery of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) and reducing the mandatory pre-deposit for appeals from 20% to 10%. This decision was made due to the government’s failure to constitute the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Tribunal.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of Patna High Court, K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Partha Sarthy recognized that the GST Tribunal had not been constituted yet and that the amendment reducing the pre-deposit to 10% would only be effective from November 1, 2024. The petitioner could not be penalized for the government’s failure to constitute the tribunal. The court relied on precedent from SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar, which allowed a stay of recovery upon depositing a portion of the disputed tax until the tribunal was established. GST Authorities cannot Add New Defects in Orders beyond those Specified in SCNs: Madras HC Tvl.Senthil Hardwares vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2484 In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) authorities cannot introduce new defects or issues in their orders that were not previously mentioned in the Show Cause Notices ( SCNs ). Justice C. Saravanan observed that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given prior notice regarding the defects mentioned in the reasoning of the order. The court determined the reasoning behind the impugned order was unsustainable due to this procedural lapse. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the case to the respondent for fresh adjudication.

Three Year Limitation Period u/s 73(10) of GST Act begins from Filing Date of Annual Return, Not Extended Due Date: Patna HC S.S. Enterprises vs Union of India & Ors CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2026 The Patna High Court has ruled that the demand order under Section 73(10) of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act must be issued within three years from the filing date of the annual return and not the extended due date. The court clarified that the three-year period under Section 73(10) is calculated from the original due date of filing the annual return, not from any extended deadlines. It also noted that the extension notifications issued by the Commissioner did not have the authority to extend the statutory period for filing returns under Section 44(2). The court further noted that the proviso under Sub-section (2) gives the Government the power to issue a notification, but the notification presented before the court, dated 28.10.2020, was issued by the Commissioner, who does not have that authority.

GST Demand raised on Difference of Tamil Nadu and All India Turnover: Madras HC sets aside Order on 10% Pre-Deposit Tvl. International Construction Co vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2238 The Madras High court considered the auditor’s certificate submitted by the petitioner particularly showing the turnover in Tamil Nadu state when they raised the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand based on ‘All India Turnover’ and set aside the order on 10% pre-deposit condition. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that imposing GST on the entire differential turnover seems prima facie unjustifiable. However, the assessing officer must verify this by closely examining all relevant documents. The court observed that the discrepancies between the GSTR returns and the financial statements, seemingly prepared on an All India basis, require reconsideration. Noting the petitioner’s lack of engagement in proceedings despite multiple opportunities, the court established terms for the petitioner.

Karnataka HC cancels GST Notices Issued to Non-Existent Entity, Overturns Proceedings M/S. TRELLEBORG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs STATE OF KARNATAKA CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1603 In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has canceled GST notices issued to a non-existent entity and overturned the related proceedings. Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav of the single bench ruled that notices issued to a non-existent entity, as detailed in Annexure-‘A’, were invalid. Consequently, all proceedings based on these notices have been annulled. However, the court has clarified that respondents retain the right to pursue actions against the correct entity concerning the matters outlined in Annexure-‘A’, in accordance with legal procedures. The petitions were dismissed on the grounds that legal proceedings cannot be initiated against a non-existent company. Delhi HC directs Readjudication of SCN issued before GST Portal Redesign KAMLA VOHRA vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO WARD 52 CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1559 A Division Bench of Delhi High Court direced the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Authority to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) issued by the authority before the GST Portal Redesign. The Petitioner contended that the SCN was to be placed under the heading of ‘ Notices ‘ but that was not done here.

According to the information received the GST Authorities has addressed the issue and re-designed the portal inorder to ensure that ‘View Notices’ and ‘View Additional Notices’ has been placed under the same heading. But the impugned SCN was issued before the portal redesign. The Petitioner was provided with the liberty to file a response to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date. Madras High Court calls GST Registration Cancellation ‘Capital Punishment’ for Traders, orders easier rules and SMS alerts in regional languages M.G.Exim vs The Assistant Commissioner (Circle) (ST) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1951 In the recent case,the High Court of Madras called the cancellation of GST registration ‘capital punishment’ for traders. The court ordered the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) department to simplify rules and send notices via SMS and in regional languages to better support small-scale entrepreneurs.

The court noted that the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, aimed to levy and collect tax on intra-state supplies and was not intended to restrict entrepreneurs’ rights. Denying the petitioner a GST registration would hinder their ability to raise bills, affecting employment opportunities and ultimately violating their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner must be allowed to continue their business and contribute to the State’s revenue. Delay in Filing GST Appeal due to demise of Assessee’s Father: Calcutta HC Condones Delay Farinni Leather Private Limited vs The Joint Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1704 The Calcutta High Court in a recent case condoned the delay in filing Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) appeal as the delay occurred due to demise of Assessee’s Father.

It was submitted that being aggrieved by an order dated 16th October, 2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the said Act, for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018, the aforesaid appeal had been filed. The appellate authority had glossed over the aforesaid explanation given by the petitioner and had purported to reject the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the appellate authority is only competent to condone the delay provided the same is filed within the period of one month beyond the time prescribed. The court viewed that the petitioner, having sufficiently explained the delay, the appellate authority ought to have appropriately considered the same.

The court set aside the order passed by the appellate authority, refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 107 of the said Act. Cancellation of GST Registration based on allegations of fake invoices & claim of ITC without movement of goods: Andhra Pradesh HC Directs Assessee to seek Remedy u/s 30 of GST Act M/s. A. T. Traders vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1589 Concerning the case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to either file an application under section 30 of the GST ( Goods and Service Tax ) Act for revocation of cancellation, or to challenge the order by filing an appeal and can seek remedy either within 15 days. A division bench of Justice, U.Durga Prasad Rao and A V Ravindra Babu, held that the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy is not available and relied upon the decision made in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of TradeMarks, Mumbai.

Therefore, directed the petitioner to file an application under section 30 of the GST Act for revocation of cancellation, or to challenge the impugned order by filing an appeal and thus dismissed the writ petition. Delhi HC quashes GST Demand Order for Non-Consideration of Reply to SCN, Demands Re-adjudication after Proper Hearing ETHOS LIMITED vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO WARD 206 ZONE 11 DELHI CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1174 The Delhi High Court quashed the GST Demand order issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017, directing the proper officer to consider the petitioner’s reply and provide them with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The division bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja, observed that the department simply stated the reply lacked merit without providing any specific reasons or justifications.

The order upholding the demand without considering the reply was unsustainable. Further, the court noted that the department could have requested further information from the company if needed instead of dismissing the entire reply. Accordingly, the court quashed the demand order issued by the GST department, and the petitioner was granted 30 days to file any further response to the show cause notice. GST Evasion by claiming Unauthorised ITC of Rs. 63.37 Crores through Fake Bills: Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail Badal Gour S/o Tedo Gour vs Union Of India CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2379 The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted bail to accused of passing unauthorised Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) worth Rs. 63.37 crores based on fake bills. It was found that the evidences procure in the matter of Ishan Gupta and no incriminating has been recovered. It was alleged that an intelligence was received that a person named Badal Gour i.e. present applicant was engaged and operative a web of 06 fake firms and he was the master mind in operating and managing this fake firms, on 31.07.2024 a summon was issued to applicant to tender oral evidence on which he gave his evidence on 05.08.2024 which was recorded under section 70 of CGST Act 2017.

It was observed that he conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence, without commenting anything on merits of the case, Chief Justice , Shri Ramesh Sinha granted regular bail to the applicant. Relief to Ford India: Madras HC sets aside Unreasoned GST Demand Order Confirming Liability in GSTR 9 and GSTR 2A Mismatch Ford India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner (ST-III) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1439 The Madras High Court, set aside the unreasoned GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order issued confirming the tax liability in mismatch between Table 8A data of GSTR 9 and GSTR 2A, granting relief to Ford India. The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the GST proposal was confirmed without any reasoning. Thus, ruled that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

Therefore, the order dated 18.03.2024 was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was also directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions are left open to the petitioner. With the assessment order being set aside, the bank attachment is also lifted. Madras HC Orders GST Department to Expedite Review of Disputed 14.5% Interest Levy on Reseller M/s.Trupthi Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor R.Nagara vs The Assistant Commissioner [ST] CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1879 The Madras High Court has directed the swift disposal of a rectification application after the GST department failed to consider in the disputed GST order that imposed an interest rate of 14.5% on the petitioner. The petitioner-assessee, Trupthi Enterprises challenged a GST assessment order dated 8th December 2022, seeking a directive for the respondent to refund ₹2,54,242/- along with interest, which was recovered from them. However, the assessment order in question directed the petitioner to pay interest at 14.5% instead of the applicable 5%. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy directed the petitioner to file a copy of the rectification application within 15 days from the date of receiving the court’s order.

The respondent was directed to dispose of the rectification application within four weeks, providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. GST Dept cannot issue Tax Demand Against Corporate Debtor: Bombay HC sets aside GST Demand Union of India through the Secretary vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2500 In a recent case, the Bombay High Court has held that the the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department cannot issue tax demand against corporate debtor and set aside the demand order without relegating the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy given in the peculiar facts and the breach of natural justice. Since the officer has failed to consider the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishras case and Bombay High Court in Murli Industries case, the division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jainhe set aside the order without relegating the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy given in the peculiar facts and the breach of natural justice.

The matter was remanded to the Respondent department. GST Invoices under Rs. 1L exempted from E-way Bill Generation: Madras HC directs to Produce Invoices Tvl.Sri Yogiram Traders VS The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2535 The Madurai bench of Madras High court has ruled that the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) invoices under Rs. 1 lakh are exempted from E-way bill generation. The court has directed the petitioner to submit the invoices. The petitioner, Tvl. Sri Yogiram Traders, in its writ petition, argued that the consolidated amount mentioned in the show cause notice pertained to multiple invoices, all of which individually fell below the Rs. 1 lakh threshold. As per GST regulations, such invoices are exempt from e-way bill generation. The High Court set aside the impugned order dated July 9, 2024.

It directed the petitioner to produce the necessary invoices and address issues related to inward invoices before the concerned authority by January 24, 2025. Late Fee Waiver benefits under Amnesty Scheme cannot be denied for GSTR 9 Returns Filed before Notification Issuance: Himachal Pradesh HC M/s R. T. Pharma vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2564 In a recent ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that late fee waiver benefits under an amnesty scheme cannot be denied for GSTR 9 returns filed before the issuance of the notification granting such benefits. R.T. Pharma, the petitioner engaged in the manufacturing and sale of medicines, filed a writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging a late fee of Rs. 12,71,754 imposed for the delayed filing of GSTR 9 and GSTR 9C returns for the financial year 2019-20. The bench comprising Tarlok Singh Chauhan ( Acting Chief Justice ) and Justice Satyen Vaidya observed that the intent of the notification was to encourage compliance, not penalize taxpayers who made efforts to rectify delays.

The court held that denying the benefit to the petitioner, who filed before the amnesty period, contradicted the intention of the notification. The court also referenced the Kerala High Court decision to explain the fairness in tax administration. Orissa HC stays SCN issued u/s 74 of GST Act Consolidating Multiple Assessment years Following Karnataka HC Ruling Dilip Kumar Swain vs Deputy Director CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2380 The Orissa High Court has stayed the notice issued under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) which consolidated multiple assessment years following the single bench’s decision of the Karnataka High Court.

The counsel relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Veremax Technologie Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax where it was held that consolidation of multiple assessment years into single show cause notice contravenes the provisions. The court stated that as the petitioner relied on the view taken by the Karnataka HC, the writ petition requires hearing and the department was directed to submit the counter by 17th December 2024. GST Notification on Extension for S. 73 Orders: Allahabad HC refuses to Entertain Prayer for Ultra Vires Declaration M/S Aadi Shakti Ent Udyog vs Goods And Service Tax Council CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1858 In a recent challenge with regards to the GST notification related to the time limit for issuing orders under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, the Allahabad High Court declined to entertain the plea declaring the notifications ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 168A of the GST Act.

The Court found that the order dated April 26, 2024, had been issued ex parte without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Both the counsels agreed that this order should be quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an order in a time. Rejection of Cancellation Application and Cancellation later ab Initio: Delhi HC limits Retrospective Effect of GST Registration Cancellation ALAKNANDA STEEL vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1845 In a notable decision, the Delhi High Court, has limited the retrospective effect of the cancellation of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration for Alaknanda Steel. The case arose after the petitioner’s application for cancellation of its GST registration was initially rejected, followed by a subsequent order that cancelled the registration retrospectively from July 1, 2017.

The Delhi High Court Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the SCN did not propose the retrospective cancellation, and no specific details were provided regarding the allegations. Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the retrospective cancellation, ruling that the cancellation of GST registration shall be effective prospectively from June 9, 2023, the date of the SCN, rather than from July 1, 2017. GST Demand Order issued Post-Resignation of Directors lie Against Company, Not Against Ex-directors: Patna HC Rishi Kant Jha S/o Surendra Jha vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2268 In a recent ruling, the High Court of Patna held that the demand order issued post resignation of directors lies against the company and not against the ex-directors. It was submitted by the petitioners that they had resigned as directors of the company on 23-01-2024, as confirmed by a board resolution.

The court was of the view that the demand order was issued in the company’s name, and was not issued against the individual petitioners. As the company continued to be in operation, the court observed that the company itself was not a party in the writ petition. Therefore, the court suggested that the petitioners address their concerns with the assessing officer ( AO ) to demonstrate that the transactions underlying the assessment were conducted after their resignation. Bombay High Court quashes GST Authority’s Improper SCN, Saving Employees of Maersk Line India from Rs. 3731 Cr Demand Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs Union of India CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 668 The Bombay Court has quashed the improper Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) issued to employees of Maersk Line India of Rs. 3731 Cr Demand assuming that the employees have benefitted from the transactions made by the company.

The bench stated that issuing the SCN to the petitioner, who is only an employee, appeared to be a tactic aimed at intimidating and pressuring the petitioner. The court found it unjust and disproportionate for the revenue officer to demand Rs. 3731 crores from the petitioner, especially when this amount is alleged to be Maersk’s liability. Issuing the SCN to the petitioner, who is only an employee, appeared to be a tactic aimed at intimidating and pressuring the petitioner.