The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws 2022. All latest latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in December 2022 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of December 2022 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 filling of return|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
Kerala HC orders to file all defaulted returns with in prescribed time limit
| High Court: Kerala high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : 2 B Trade link VS The Assistant Commissioner |
| Date of Judgment : : 22-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : WPC No 30901 of 2022 |
| Judges : : GOPINATH P. |
| Counsel Name : Sri. Abraham David, Aji V.Dev, Alan Priyadarshi Dev, S.Sajeevan |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner’s registration under the CGST/SGST Acts of 2017 was revoked due to their failure to file returns for a six-month period. Although they did submit returns for the missed period afterward, they did not appeal the cancellation order under Section 107 nor file for revocation of the order within the time frame stated under Section 30 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition with the appropriate High Court. |
| Held by court : Upon examining the show cause notice, it became apparent that it was issued in the incorrect form, GST REG-31, which is intended for suspension or revocation, rather than for registration cancellation. Moreover, the notice lacked clarity and failed to specify the exact reasons for the proposed cancellation or the period in question for failure to file returns. It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that when the law stipulates a particular manner of doing something, it must be done in that precise manner. Therefore, the officer’s actions of initiating proceedings in the wrong form and issuing the impugned order for registration cancellation were clearly beyond their jurisdiction. If the officer wishes to proceed with cancellation proceedings, they must issue a notice in accordance with Rule 21 of the CGST Rules and in form GST REG-17. In addition to the faulty form, the notice was also deficient in detail, and thus the writ petition is allowed. However, it is important to note that the nullification of the impugned order of cancellation does not absolve the petitioner of any financial liability. The petitioner is required to submit all pending returns, along with taxes, late fees, interest, and penalties, within two weeks of their registration being restored in accordance with the judgment. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST : Section 29 or 30 of CGST Act |
GST case laws pdf
GST Case law on Refund of IGST in case of Export|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
Gujarat HC agrees to pay the refund of IGST with Interest @ 6% with all consequential benefits
gst refund case laws
| High Court: Gujarat high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Aartos International LLP (Formerly Azuvi International LLP) VS Deputy Commissioner Customs |
| Date of Judgment : 02-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Special Civil application No.14649 of 2022 |
| Judges : MS.Sonia Gokani , Mrs. Manua M Bhatt |
| Counsel Name : : MR. Hardik V Vora (7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR Nikunt K Raval (5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner had exported goods and received a refund for two out of three shipping bills filed. However, the Department raised objections stating that the third shipping bill indicated “Permanent Cancellation by PAO for transaction” according to the ICEGATE Scroll status. Additionally, the bank did not pay the refund due to a discrepancy in the petitioner’s firm name. |
| Held by court : The petition is ALLOWED. Let the refund of IGST be paid for the amount of Rs.19, 94,994/- with interest at the rate of 6% and with all consequential benefits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : : Refund of IGST in case of Export |
| Section of GST : Section 15 & 16 of IGST Act, 2017 along with Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017. Section 54(6) of CGST Act, 2017 & Section 91(2) of CGST Rules, 2017. |
GST case laws PDF
GST Case law on Search and seizure Operation
Delhi HC orders to complete proceedings expeditiously u/s 130 of CGST Act, 2017
Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : ARJ Exim India VS Assistant Commissioner CGST |
| Date of Judgment : 16-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition 14000/2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Vibhu Bakhru , Mr.Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Ramakant Gaur, Ms. Sneha Arya, Ms. Prerana Agarwal, Ms. Harshi Gaur and Ms. Gauri Chauhan, Advocates |
| Fact of the Case: Search and seizure operations were conducted on the premises of the petitioners on 29.12.2020 and 30.12.2020. It is stated that on 30.12.2020, 375 boxes / cartons were seized from the premises. One of the principal allegations made against the petitioners is that they had fraudulently availed input tax credit. The petitioners also sought cross-examination of certain officers of the DGCI and other witnesses as mentioned in the present petition. |
| Held by court : : The adjudicating authority is requested to complete the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four months from today. The adjudicating authority shall consider and dispose of the petition’s application for cross examination of witnesses/officers in accordance with law gst landmark judgements |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Search and seizure operations |
| Section of GST : Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017 |
Latest GST case laws PDF
GST Case law on Input tax Credit
Allahabad High Court Judgment on GST 2022
High Court modifies earlier order and directs First appellate authority to get complete information from assesse with in prescribed time limit.
gst case laws on itc
| High Court: Allahabad high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/S Ashish Trading Company |
| Date of Judgment : 06-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Tax No. 228 of 2021, Writ Tax No.229 of 2021, Writ Tax No.230 of 2021, and 231 of 2021 |
| Judges : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J |
| Counsel Name : Pranjal Shukla |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner’s company is registered under the Goods & Services Tax Act of 2017. On December 9th, 2019, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The petitioner replied to the notice online, but the Deputy Commissioner rejected their response in an order dated January 23rd, 2020.Displeased with the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner was that all GST had been paid on time and all relevant documents had been submitted to the authorities, and that the Assessing Authority had wrongly cancelled their Input Tax Credit claim. However, the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on October 20th, 2020, primarily on the grounds that the registration of the firm that had supplied the goods to the petitioner’s firm, i.e. M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises, Agra, had already been cancelled, and that the petitioner did not provide any information regarding the amount charged for loading and unloading the goods. |
| Held by court : Upon examination, this Court has determined that the conclusion reached by the first Appellate Authority is unclear, as it simply states in its ruling that the supplier’s registration was cancelled, without specifying the date of cancellation to establish whether the transaction occurred prior to or after the cancellation. Furthermore, the first Appellate Authority rejected the claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis that there was no evidence presented to support the payment for the loading and unloading of the goods. This Court has concluded that the finding made by the first Appellate Authority is not valid and therefore it is overturned. The case is referred back to the first Appellate Authority with instructions to make a specific finding regarding the date of cancellation of registration of M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises, Agra, and whether any business activity was conducted by the supplier firm before or after the cancellation. The first Appellate Authority is required to complete this investigation within six weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. |
| In favor of : Partly in favor of assesse |
| Concept of GST : Input Tax credit |
| Section of GST : Section 16 & 74 of CGST Act, 2017 |
PDF of latest GST case laws
GST Case law on E-way bill
GST case law on Intercepting Truck under E-way Bill Rules
Recent GST Case Laws 2022
High Court has given Liberty to appeal manually or online to raise issue before the appellate authority.
| High Court: Jharkhand high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/s. Burnpur Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd VS State of Jharkhand |
| Date of Judgment : 21-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition No. 3651 of 2021 |
| Judges : Mr. Deepak Roshan |
| Counsel Name : M/s. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Adv, Ms. SidhiJalan, Adv. Mr. Naveen Toppo, Adv. Mr. ShubhamChoudhary, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Safalta, Adv. |
| Fact of the Case: The truck was intercepted by the Officers of Investigation Bureau, during the investigation it was found that the E-way bill had expired and statement of the truck driver was recorded, the Petitioner Company deemed to be the owner of the goods. However, the Petitioner Company being a dealer registered outside State of Jharkhand would have to temporarily register itself in the name of driver in the State of Jharkhand for further proceedings. the Petitioner Company paid the entire demand of tax and penalty for release of goods and the vehicle after which an order in Form GST MOV-05 was issued, directing the release of vehicle and goods contained therein. Without providing any opportunity of hearing on the date fixed i.e. 08.09.2021, an order of demand and penalty has been passed u/s 129(3) of the Act in Form GST MOV 09 in a mechanical manner and in the name of the truck driver. On the ground of there being no evasion of tax and no contravention of Section 129(3) of the Act the proceeding has been initiated against the truck driver, but since the truck driver is not registered as a dealer and the payment was made by the Petitioner Company, hence, the company has chosen to file the present writ petition being an aggrieved party. |
| Held by court : : Liberty granting to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under Form GST MOV 09. On his approaching, the State Taxes Officer, Intelligence Bureau, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad shall provide the GSTIN number so that the petitioner can prefer an appeal online. In case the appeal is not accepted online for any technical reasons, he would be at liberty to prefer an appeal manually before the appellate authority. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of facts & law and the grounds available to it in the appeal which shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Intercepting of Truck under E-way Bill Rules |
| Section of GST : Rule 138, CGST Act Rules, 2017. |
latest judgment on gst PDF
GST Case law on Principal of Natural Justice
High Court has given Liberty to appeal manually or online to raise issue before the appellate authority
latest gst judgements|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Patna high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/s Cement House VS The Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 09-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15680 of 2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Partha Sarthy |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner has filed a petition to quash the order dated 06.03.2021 and 06.02.2021 passed by respondent no. 6, The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Saharsa Circle, Sahara in Reference No. 1820 and Reference No. ZD100221005021T respectively, as well as the summary of the order dated 06.02.2021 passed in GST DRC-07 for the period 2019-20, which is ex parte in nature. |
| Held by court : In our considered opinion, this Court has the power to intervene even when there is a statutory remedy, if we find that the order is clearly unlawful. We assert this for two reasons: (a) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, which require a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case, as sufficient time was not provided for this; (b) the ex parte order is not accompanied by any reasons that can be deciphered from the record, which explain how the officer determined the amount due from the assessee. A ex parte order passed in violation of natural justice has civil consequences. Therefore, based on this ground alone, we dispose of this writ petition. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : : Principal of Natural Justice & Order ex parte and DRC-07 |
| Section of GST : FORM DRC-07 and Rule 100 of CGST Rules, 2017 |
latest gst judgements PDF
GST Case Law on registration|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
GST case law related to Cancellation of GST registration
High Court allow to file Revocation of cancellation of GST Registration
| High Court: Uttarakhand high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Devendra Prasad VS Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax. |
| Date of Judgment : 16-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3263 of 2022 |
| Judges : Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Ravi Sehgal,, Mr. Rohit Arora, Mr. Tarun Lakhera, |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee, who failed to furnish returns for six consecutive months, received a show cause notice and had his GST registration cancelled. In a writ petition, the assessee sought to quash the order of registration cancellation. The revenue authorities contended that an alternative forum was available for the assessee to file an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation. gst case laws on registration |
| Held by court : The assessee was instructed to file an application for revocation of Registration before the revenue within 21 days, in accordance with Rule 23 of CGST Rules and Section 30 of the CGST Act, even though the time limit had expired. The assessee must also file returns for the six defaulted months and any subsequent completed months after revocation. If any dues are owed, they must be paid, and the revenue will examine the assessee’s case with leniency and dispose of it within 30 days. latest judgment under gst |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : GST Registration |
| Section of GST : Section 30 of CGST Act Read with Rule 23 of CGST Rules, 2017 |
latest judgment under gst PDF
GST Case law on Search and Seizure
GST authority can retain seized goods for maximum period of four and half years
GST latest judgment
Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Dhruv Krishan Maggu VS Principal Director General |
| Date of Judgment : 12-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition No 7517/2020 |
| Judges : Prathiba M Singh |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Akhil Krishnan Maggu, Advocate |
| Fact of the Case: The Petitioner is requesting the return of his laptop, computer, documents, and other items that were confiscated by the Respondents / Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) during a search conducted on August 28th, 2019.According to the case, the DGGI was informed by the Chief Manager of Allahabad Bank in JawalaHeri Market, Paschim Vihar about some significant transactions related to GST refunds credited to four recently opened bank accounts. The bank account holders withdrew the entire refund amount shortly after receiving it. As a result of the measures taken at that point, the bank accounts of M/s Monal Enterprises, Aircon Overseas, Micra Overseas, and Ganeshi Inc. were frozen, and the total amount credited to their bank accounts was found to be Rs. 10,32,21,718/-. According to the counter affidavit, a search and seizure operation was carried out at B-773, Sushant Lok-1, Gurugram, Haryana on 28th August 2019 as part of the investigation into these transactions. During this operation, computers, laptops, documents and other materials were seized, and the petitioner is now seeking their release through this petition. |
| Held by court : After considering sections 67(2) second proviso, 67(3), 74(2), and 74(10), it is understood that the “documents or book or things” can be kept for a maximum of four and a half years, within which time the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of erroneous refund. In the current case, this period has not yet elapsed. Thus, the Court does not consider it appropriate to order the release of the computer, laptop, documents, and other items seized on 28th August 2019, at this stage.It is unnecessary to mention that the authorities must follow the legal procedures and adhere to the timelines specified by the law. Therefore, the writ petitions are rejected. All pending applications are also disposed of. latest gst case laws |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : Search & Seizure |
| Section of GST : Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST latest judgment PDF
GST Case law on e way bill related to Truck detain
High court says liberty given to petitioner to file appeal manually before appellate authority
free gst case laws
| High Court: Jharkhand high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/s GMT Industries Ltd. VS State of Jharkhand |
| Date of Judgment : 21-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition Tax No. 1846 of 2021 |
| Judges : Mr. Deepak Roshan |
| Counsel Name : M/s. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Adv. Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Adv. Mr. Naveen Toppo, Adv. Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Safalta, Adv. |
| Fact of the Case: How an Officer of the State Taxes could carry out the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act that too, when he is not the proper Officer under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, 2. Tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 13, 68,000/- has been imposed on the ground that E-way Bill had been cancelled during transit without any finding of evasion of tax, which otherwise is also beyond jurisdiction. 3. Consequently, the amount deposited by the petitioner company for the purpose of release of truck be directed to be refunded to the Petitioner |
| Held by court : Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under Form GST MOV 09. On his approaching, the State Taxes Officer, Intelligence Bureau, Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur shall provide the GSTIN number so that the petitioner can prefer an appeal online. In case the appeal is not accepted online for any technical reasons, he would be at liberty to prefer an appeal manually before the appellate authority. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of facts & law and the grounds available to it in the appeal which shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. famous gst case laws |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : GST Registration & E-way Bill |
| Section of GST : Rule 138 of CGST Rules,2017 |
free gst case laws pdf
GST Case law on Reimbursement of additional tax liability in Pre GST regime
High court allows to take refund of additional GST liability in Pre GST regime
gst case laws digest
| High Court: Chhattisgarh high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/s Gordhandas Gobindram VS State of Chhattisgarh |
| Date of Judgment : 20-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition No.5471 of 2022 |
| Judges : P. Sam Koshy |
| Counsel Name : Mr.Harsh Wardhan, Advocate |
| Fact of the Case: This petition has been filed by M/s Gordhandas Gobindram (“the Petitioner”), who was awarded a contract/work order by the Public Works Department, Raipur (“the Respondent”) prior to the introduction of GST law. The Petitioner on account of the introduction of new GST law was required to pay certain additional tax liability, which the Petitioner now intends to get it refunded from the Respondent. The Petitioner submitted that the Respondent itself has taken a policy decision vide order dated October 10, 2018 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the State Government to ensure the reimbursement of additional tax liability incurred by the contractors in respect of contracts, which were awarded prior to July 1, 2017 i.e. the date from which the GST law came into force. |
| Held by court : The petitioner is also required to produce before the authority concern necessary proof of the additional tax liability incurred on account of the introduction of the GST law within a period of one week. Subject to the petitioner approaching respondents No.2 to 5 along with fresh claim and necessary proof, the respondent’s authorities shall scrutinize the same and take a decision within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of claim of the petitioner along with copy of this order keeping in mind the order of the State Government. important gst case laws |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Reimbursement of additional tax liability |
| Section of GST : |
gst case laws digest pdf
GST Case Law on Refund the amount which has been erroneously paid as Tax
High Court gives relief by ordering to refund the amount of Tax.
gst case laws 2022
| High Court: Andhra Pradesh high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : : M/s Varshan enterprises VS Office of GST Council |
| Date of Judgment : 09-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition No.10637 OF 2021 |
| Judges : Mr. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, Mr. A.V.RAVINDRA BABU |
| Counsel Name : J N Venkata Suresh Kumar |
| Fact of the Case: The Petitioner issued an invoice with IGST levied by mistake, although the recipient was located in the same State as the Petitioner. The GST portal did not allow rectification of this mistake as the time period had expired. The Petitioner requested the department to either refund the amount or adjust it against existing liabilities, but was directed to claim the refund through online mode by following the circular CBEC-20/16/04/18-GST dated 18-11-2019 issued for refunds. |
| Held by court : The tax paid by providing wrong information cannot be regarded as payable tax under the CGST Act, and the department cannot withhold it. The refund application filed by the petitioner is not covered by the aforementioned circular, and the department cannot direct the petitioner to apply for a refund online as Rule 97A allows for manual submission of the refund claim. Therefore, the petitioner should apply for a refund in manual form, and the department shall pass an order in accordance with the law. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST : Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 & Rule 97A of CGST Rules,2017 |
gst case laws 2022 pdf
GST Case law on unblock Electronic Credit Ledger with liberty to recover ITC with Interest
High Court orders to unblock the ITC available to the petitioner in his ECR.
gst latest case laws|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Sunny Jain VS Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 05-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Write Petition No 6444/2022, CM Nos.19502/2022 & 33763/2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, Mr. Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav |
| Counsel Name : NA |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner’s ECL was blocked by the authorities, alleging that the petitioner had not paid the supplier’s consideration. However, the petitioner argued that the ECL could not be blocked for a period of eighteen months as the provision only allows it to be blocked for a maximum of one year. |
| Held by court : According to rule 37 of CGST Rules and the proviso to section 16(2) of CGST Act, a taxpayer is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) without paying consideration to their supplier, and if payment is not made within 180 days, the ITC must be reversed. However, the petitioner’s eligibility for ITC cannot be denied solely on the basis of availing ITC before making payment to the supplier and after the expiry of the 180-day period. Blocking of the petitioner’s ECL for an extended period beyond one year was not authorized by law. Therefore, the department must be directed to unblock the ECL and has the liberty to recover the ITC with interest, if necessary, to be included in the petitioner’s output liability. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Utilization of Amount available in Electronic Credit Ledger, Input tax credit |
| Section of GST : Rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017 & Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017 |
gst latest case laws pdf
GST Case law on demand of Late fees for non filling return by due date
No Late fees to be charged if returns not filed due to cancellation of GST registration, which was restored subsequently
gst important case laws|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Calcutta high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Modicum Enterprise Pvt ltd VS Deputy Commissioner of State Tax/Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Shibpur Charge & Ors. |
| Date of Judgment : 22-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : M.A.T No.1828 of 2022 with I.A. No .CAN 1 of 2022 |
| Judges : Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam, Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharya |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Sourabh Sankar Sengupta, Mr. Indranil Biswa |
| Fact of the Case: The appellant was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the rules framed thereunder. The registration was cancelled on the ground that the appellant was a non-existing dealer. The question would be whether the late fee can be demanded from the appellant. Admittedly, the provision deals with a person, who fails to furnish the returns either under Section 39 or Section 45 or Section 44. In the instant case, the revenue does not state that the appellant failed to furnish its return within the due date. The reason for non-furnishing the return is cancellation of the registration on the ground that the appellant is a non-existing dealer. |
| Held by court : This appeal and the connected application as well as the writ petition are disposed of by restraining the respondents from demanding any late fee from the appellant in respect of the returns, which they intend to file and to facilitate the process of filing the return, the nodal officer in the Goods and Services Tax Help Desk, Kolkata is directed to render necessary assistance so that the appellant will be able to file the return without the payment of late fee. This direction shall be complied with within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Demand of Late fee for non filling of return by due date |
| Section of GST : Section 47,CGST Act,2017, Section 73 of CGST Act,2017.section 29 & 30 of CGST Act,2017 |
gst important case laws pdf
GST Case law on Provisional attachment of Property
High Court restricts Bank account in Provisional attachment of Property
gst related case laws|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : R Enterprise VS Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 21-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition .(C) 17436/2022 & CM Appl. 55565/2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, Mr. Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Arjun Malik, Advocate. |
| Fact of the Case: 1. the petitioner claims that it was denied access to its bank account on 05.11.2021 without being informed of any reason for the same, since then the petitioner is unable to operate the bank account. 2. The petitioner claims that it also met the Manager of the said bank, who also declined to inform him the reason for freezing withdrawals from the bank account on the ground that the same was confidential. 3. Petitioner claims that it has been repeatedly pursuing its bank for providing him the reasons for freezing the account but has received no information from the said bank. |
| Held by court : In so far as the reasons for freezing the bank account is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the ICICI Bank for seeking the reasons for freezing the bank account. The bank is directed to provide the petitioner the reasons for the same. It is expected that the Respondent’s will complete the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : Provisional attachment of Property |
| Section of GST : Section 83 of CGST Act,2017 & Section 70 of CGST Act,2017.Rule 159 of CGST Rules,2017 |
gst related case laws pdf
GST Case Laws on Refund the amount paid during investigation with interest @ 6%
High Court orders to refund the amount of Tax with interest @ 6%
recent gst judgment|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/S. Vallabh Textile VS Senior Intelligence Officer And ORS |
| Date of Judgment : 20-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition (C) 9834/2022 |
| Judges : Mr.Rajiv Shakdher, Ms.Tara Vitasta Ganju |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Vivek Sarin with Mr. Dibya Prashant Singh, Advocates |
| Fact of the Case: The individual being assessed argued that the total amount of money deposited was done so under duress during the search proceedings. |
| Held by court : The payment made prior to the search proceedings was not voluntary because there was no acknowledgment of the payment acceptance issued in Form GST DRC-04, which is required by Rule 142. The deposited amount lacked any element of voluntariness, as evidenced by the fact that the payments were made during midnight and early hours when the search was not concluded. Additionally, the failure to follow the prescribed legal procedure indicated that the deposits were not voluntary. Therefore, the department must be directed to refund the amount, along with interest. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Investigation -Payment during investigation |
| Section of GST : Rule 142 of CGST Rules,2017,Section 67of CGST Act,2017, Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
recent gst judgment pdf
FAQS
What is high court order on GST refund?
in case of M/S. Vallabh Textile VS Senior Intelligence Officer And ORS (Delhi High Court ) -High Court orders to refund the amount of Tax with interest @ 6%
Read similar articles
