The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws September 2024. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in August 2024 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of September 2024 in this article have been classified by name, date, judge, counsel, GST concept, GST section, etc. In addition, a PDF of the GST case law is provided with the case law so that the user can download it for further study.
GST Case law on Limiting the Scope of Blocking ITC to Available Credit
Delhi High Court says the blockage should only apply to the ITC that is available in the ECL at the time the order is issued, not the past ITC.
| Delhi High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Best Crop Science (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate |
| Date of Judgment : 24-09-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) Nos. 15380 of 2023 and 5250, 5395, 5397, 6997, 7183, 9350, 10980 of 2024 CM Nos. 61699 of 2023 and 38315, 45297, 45298 of 2024 |
| Judges : Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Himanshu Tyagi, Jitin Singhal, Vibhooti Malhotra, Bhuvnesh Satija, Udit Sharma, Mohit Gupta, Rajesh Mahna, Ramanand Roy, Mayank Routs, Ms. Silky Wadhwa, Shiva Narang, Rakesh Kumar, Praveen Kumar and Atul |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioners had ITC in their ECL that they wanted to use. The authorities blocked the use of ITC, stating it was wrongfully claimed. However, they also issued orders requiring the petitioners to “replenish” the ITC that had already been used in past transactions. |
| Held by court : The court ruled that Rule 86A is meant only to temporarily block the use of current ITC available in the ledger, not to force taxpayers to restore or pay back ITC that had already been used. Thus, the order blocking ITC beyond what was currently available in the ECL at the time of the order was incorrect and set aside.This ruling clarifies that the use of Rule 86A must be limited to protecting revenue in ongoing situations and not as a tool for recovering past dues. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Provisional attachment & Blocking of Electronic Credir |
| Section of GST: Section 83 with Section 49A & 49B of CGST Act,2017, Rule 86A of CGST Rules,2017 |
Download PDF of Delhi High Court judgement of Best Crop Science (P.) Ltd.
GST Case law on Refund of IGST on exported goods or services
Gujarat High court says the judgement was rectified to reflect the correct date of 09-10-2018 for the notification.
| Gujarat High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 19-09-2024 |
| Appeal No : CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1 of 2020 CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of 2021 R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15833 OF 2018 |
| Judges : BHARGAV D. KARIA AND Niral R. Mehta, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Bhavesh B. Chokshi |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioners had filed for a refund of IGST paid on exported goods or services.The court initially passed a judgment (CAV judgment) that referred to an incorrect effective date for Notification No. 54/2018.The petitioners filed an application to correct this mistake. |
| Held by court : The court found that the mistake was “apparent on record” (clear and obvious) and corrected the judgment to reflect the correct effective date of 9th October 2018 for the notification. This change affected how the refunds would be processed, ensuring that the correct legal provisions were applied from the correct date.In conclusion, the court recognized the mistake in its original judgment and made the necessary corrections to ensure that the law was properly applied to the petitioners’ case. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : IGST Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 & 161 of CGST Act,2017, Rule 96 of CGST Rules,2017 |
GST Case law on Invalid Show Cause Notices Issued to Dissolved Firm
Allahabad High Court says how cause notice issued to non-existent firm was not valid in law.
| Allahabad High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Arpit Agarwal vs. State of U.P |
| Date of Judgment : 18-09-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 1386 OF 2024 |
| Judges : Shekhar B. Saraf AND Manjive Shukla, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Abhinav Mehrotra and Satya Vrata Mehrotra |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, a partnership firm was originally made up of two partners. During the Covid-19 pandemic, one of the partners passed away, which led to the firm no longer existing (since the firm cannot continue with just one partner). Despite this, a show cause notice (a formal notice asking why legal action should not be taken) was issued to this firm, which had already ceased to exist. |
| Held by court : The show cause notices issued to the dissolved firm were invalid. However, the tax authorities have the right to proceed against the surviving partner and the legal heirs of the deceased partner for the taxes owed, based on their respective shares. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Liability to pay tax |
| Section of GST: Section of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Allahabad High Court Judgement of Arpit Agrawal
GST Case law on Demand Based on GSTR-01 and GSTR-09 Mismatch
Delhi High Court allow the authority to reconsider the matter afresh, taking into account the same issue.
| Delhi High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India (P.) Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer |
| Date of Judgment : 17-09-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (C) NO. 7655 OF 2024 CM APPL. NO. 31863, 53916 OF 2024 |
| Judges : Vibhu Bakhru AND Sachin Datta, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sparsh Bhargava, Ms. Ishita and Ms. Vanshika Taneja |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, the tax authorities issued a demand under Section 79 of the CGST Act due to a mismatch between the taxpayer’s GSTR-01 (which reports sales) and GSTR-09 (the annual return). The taxpayer argued that the mismatch was caused by a technical glitch in the GST portal. Specifically, the issue occurred when the taxpayer reported adjustments related to advance payments in Table 11B of GSTR-01. Instead of reducing the output tax liability as it should have, the GST portal wrongly added the GST component to the tax liability, leading to an overstatement of taxes owed. The taxpayer explained that this portal error was the reason for the mismatch, but the authorities did not accept this explanation and confirmed the demand as proposed in the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The taxpayer further pointed out that a similar issue had occurred in the next tax period, and in that case, the adjudicating authority had investigated the matter, accepted the explanation about the technical glitch, and dropped the demand. Despite this precedent, the authorities in this instance refused to acknowledge the glitch and upheld the demand. |
| Held by court : Since the adjudicating authority had already reviewed and accepted the taxpayer’s explanation about the technical glitch in a similar case for a later period, the current order was found to be inappropriate. Therefore, the court decided that the order should be set aside (cancelled), and the case should be sent back (remanded) to the adjudicating authority. This would allow the authority to reconsider the matter afresh, taking into account the same issue that had been resolved in the taxpayer’s favor for the subsequent period. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand and Recovery of Tax |
| Section of GST: Section 79 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Delhi high court of Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India (P.) Ltd
GST Case law on Invalid Extension of Time Limit
Gauhati High Court says the notification is not valid because it did not get the necessary approval from the GST Council as required by law.
| Gauhati High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Jawahar Singh vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 13-09-2024 |
| Appeal No : WP(C) NO. 4681 OF 2024 |
| Judges : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. |
| Counsel Name : R.S. Mishra |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, the petitioner challenged the action taken by the CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) regarding the issuance of Notification No. 56/2023-CT, dated 28th December 2023. This notification extended the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act for two financial years: 2018-19 (extended until 30th April 2024) and 2019-20 (extended until 31st August 2024). The petitioner argued that this notification was issued without the recommendation of the GST Council, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 168A of the CGST Act. According to the petitioner, such an extension of time could not legally occur unless the GST Council recommended it, making the notification invalid. |
| Held by court : Notification No. 56/2023, which extended the time limits for passing orders under Section 73(9), was not in line with the legal requirements of Section 168A. If this notification does not hold up under legal examination, it would be considered invalid. As a result, any actions or decisions made based on this notification would also be legally flawed and would not be enforceable. In simple terms, if the notification is found to be unlawful, everything done in reliance on it would also be considered invalid. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Recovery of Tax |
| Section of GST: Section 168A & 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Gauhati High Court Judgement of Jawahar Singh
GST Case law on Appeal Cannot Be Rejected for Late Certified Copy
Allahabad High Court says appeal Filed Within Legal Time Frame Cannot Be Rejected for Delayed Certified Copy Submission
| Allahabad High Court judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Patel Beej Bhandar vs. State of U.P |
| Date of Judgment : 11-09-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 1299 OF 2024 |
| Judges : Piyush Agrawal, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ajay Kumar Yadav and Arti Singh |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner’s appeal to the appellate authority was rejected because it was submitted after the deadline, making it barred by limitation. The reason for this was that the petitioner did not provide a self-attested copy of the order they were appealing within the time limit specified under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules. In simple terms, the appeal was dismissed because the required documents were not submitted on time, as per the rules. |
| Held by court : In the case of Visible Alpha Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, it was decided that if an appeal is filed within the three-month time limit set by the law, the appeal should not be rejected just because the certified copy of the decision was not filed in time. Based on this ruling, the order rejecting the assessee’s appeal in the current case cannot be legally justified. As a result, the order should be quashed (cancelled), since the appeal was filed within the correct time frame. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 and Rule 108 of CGST Rules ,2017 |
Case laws on Extension of Limitation Period for Filing Appeal Due to Delayed Communication of Order
Punjab & Haryana High Court decided that the Appellate Authority should review the appeal based on its merits and not dismiss it simply because it was filed late.
| Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Elanco India (P.) Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer |
| Date of Judgment : 02-09-2024 |
| Appeal No : CWP No. 19286 of 2024 |
| Judges : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and SANJAY VASHISTH, J.J. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Priyanka Rathi, Ashwini Chandrasekaran |
| Fact of the Case: The case revolves around the time limit for filing an appeal under section 107. In this situation, the tax authority issued an order against the taxpayer on December 30, 2023. However, the taxpayer claims that this order was only posted on the official portal and was not directly communicated to them. The taxpayer became aware of this order much later, in April 2024, during a scrutiny proceeding.By the time the taxpayer discovered the order, the usual time limit for filing an appeal, as outlined in section 107, had already passed. Because of this, the taxpayer filed a writ petition, arguing that the time limit for appealing the decision had expired, and they were unaware of the order due to the lack of direct communication. The core issue here is whether posting the order on the portal without direct communication to the taxpayer is sufficient to start the clock on the limitation period for filing an appeal. |
| Held by court : In this case, it was found that the taxpayer was actually informed about the order in April 2024. This means that the taxpayer could have only filed an appeal after that date. However, the law states that the time limit for filing an appeal starts from the date the order was passed, not the date it was communicated to the taxpayer. Given this situation, the taxpayer argued that they were unable to file the appeal within the time limit because they were not informed in time. The court accepted this argument and decided that the Appellate Authority should look into the merits of the appeal. The court also instructed that if the taxpayer files the appeal within the next 15 days, it should be considered on its actual merits, without being rejected just because of the delay in filing. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeals to appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download Punjab & Haryana Court Judgement of Elanco India (P.) Ltd.
