The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws 2022. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in September 2022 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of September 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 Anti Evasion Proceedings | Recent GST Case Laws 2022
Calcutta High court says Department should complete audit proceedings and not proceed further with impugned notices issued by Anti evasion wing and Range Office for same period
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : R. P. Buildcon (P.) Ltd. VS Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 30-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : M.A.T. NO.1595 OF 2022 I.A. NO.CAN 1 OF 2022 |
| Judges : T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ankit Kanodia, Ms. Megha Agarwal and Jitesh Sah |
| Fact of the Case: A writ petition has been filed to invalidate the notices issued by the Anti-evasion Wing and Range Office for the financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20, despite GST audit proceedings having been initiated but not concluded. |
| Held by court : If audit proceedings under section 65 have already begun, they should be brought to a logical conclusion and the proceedings initiated by the Anti-Evasion and Range Office for the same period should not be continued any further. The department must complete the audit proceedings and should not proceed with the disputed notices issued by the Anti-Evasion Wing and Range Office for the same period. The department has also been instructed to issue a show cause notice and to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing an order. The order passed by the Single Judge Bench was directed to be quashed. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Audit Proceedings & Anti Evasion Proceedings |
| Section of GST: Section 65 of CGST Act,2017 |
high court judgement on anti evasion proceedings pdf
GST Case law on Cancellation of GST Registration| Recent GST Case Laws 2022
Rajasthan High Court says GST cancellation not only restricts the assessee from conducting their business but also violates their right to life and liberty.
| High Court : Rajasthan High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Poonamchand Saran vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 29-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14521 & 14524 OF 2022 |
| Judges : KULDEEP MATHUR AND SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Vikas Balia Sharad Kothari, Priyanshu Arora and Mayank Taparia |
| Fact of the Case: . The cancellation of registration for one assessee was based on the failure to submit a hard copy of the appeal on time, while for another assessee, registration was cancelled due to the failure to file an appeal against the cancellation order. This cancellation of registration deprived the assessees of the opportunity to conduct their businesses and earn a livelihood, which could be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. |
| Held by court : Without a GST registration, businesses cannot operate, which would deprive the assessee of their livelihood, thus violating their right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The disputed order cancelling registration was to be annulled. The assessee must be directed to file an appeal against the cancellation of registration within 10 days before the competent officer. The appeals should be decided without the limitation period being an obstacle. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Cancellation of GST Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 30 of CGST Act,2017 & Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
Recent GST Case Laws 2022
GST Case law on RCM| Recent GST Case laws 2022
Rajasthan High Court orders to pay RCM on mining lease services provided by Government.
| High Court : Rajasthan High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Chak vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 29-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5678 OF 2022 AND OTHS. |
| Judges : KULDEEP MATHUR AND SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sharad Kothari, Lokesh Mathur, Sheetal Kumbhat, Arvind Shrimali, Amit Vyas, D.D. Chittlangi, Achala Ram, Lalit Pareek, Saurabh Maheshwari, Tarun Dudia, Vinay Kothari, Devendra Singh Chauhan, V.K. Agarwal and Rahul Lakhwani |
| Fact of the Case: The taxability of the royalty paid by the petitioner-assessees to the government on mining lease services under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) is under consideration. |
| Held by court : The issue of taxability of royalty paid by the petitioner-assessees to the government on mining lease services under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) has already been settled against the assessees by a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in Sudershan Lal Gupta Contractor v. Union of India [2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 4 (Raj.)]. This decision relied on several other decisions of co-ordinate Benches and held that royalty paid by a lease holder to the government on mining lease services is taxable under RCM. Hence, the Writ Petitions filed by the assessees on this issue were dismissed, without prejudicing their statutory right to contest/reply to show cause notice or to file an appeal against adjudication orders. However, the hearing in the Writ Petitions that pertained to the demand of GST on the contribution made to the District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT) has been deferred. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : RCM on Leasing service |
| Section of GST: Section 9 of CGST Act,2017 |
PDF of latest GST case laws
GST Case law on Appellate authority| Recent GST Case laws 2022
Calcutta High Court says No order was passed even after representations were made before the Appellate Authority seeking disposal, the said Authority shall be directed to pass the order sought for.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Diamond Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & CD (Appeal-1) |
| Date of Judgment : 29-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : W.P.A. NO. 21238 OF 2022 |
| Judges : MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ankit Kanodia, Ms. Megha Agarwal and Ms. Payal Shaw |
| Fact of the Case: An appeal was filed in March 2019, and the hearing was concluded in January 2021. Two representations were made seeking disposal, one in July 2021 and another in March 2022. However, till date, no order has been passed disposing of the appeal |
| Held by court : The Appellate Authority has been directed to pass a final order within eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 |
recent gst judgment pdf
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case laws 2022
Andhra Pradesh High Court directs respondent to considered circular clarifying time limit and effect of amendment relating to refund.
| High Court : Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Axis Bank vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 29-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO.11424 OF 2021 |
| Judges : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : |
| Fact of the Case: Tax was paid incorrectly as IGST and to rectify this mistake, CGST and SGST were paid, resulting in the payment of tax twice for the same services rendered. A refund application was filed, but it was rejected on the ground that it was time-barred. |
| Held by court : The matter was remanded because the concerned authority, while passing an order, could not have taken into consideration the circular issued by CBIC in September 2021. The circular clarified the effect of the insertion of a rule providing for a time limit of two years and for refund claims filed before the amendment, two years to be counted from the date of the effect of the amendment. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 with section 77 of CGST Act,2017. Section 19 of IGST Act,2017 |
high court judgement andhra pradesh
GST Case law on Provisional attachment | Recent GST Case laws 2022
Andhra Pradesh High Court says issuance of order without disclosure of materials and information are not sustainable
| High Court : Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : M.R. Metals vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST) Joint Commissioner (ST) Chief Commissioner of State Tax (Int.) |
| Date of Judgment : 29-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 31148 OF 2022 |
| Judges : SRI C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND SRI A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy |
| Fact of the Case: The Department issued a DRC-01A notice alleging non-disclosure of materials and claiming that original tax invoices were not produced, suppliers were fake, and goods were not transported. The petitioner submitted a letter requesting an extension of time to respond, but the order was passed without providing an opportunity to respond. Additionally, the bank account of the petitioner was provisionally attached. |
| Held by court : The impugned order alleging non-disclosure of materials violated the principles of natural justice since the details necessary for the petitioner to defend themselves were not provided, such as the names of the suppliers, the toll gate through which goods were allegedly not transported, and the vehicle owners who claimed that their vehicles were not hired for transportation. The order and provisional attachment order were therefore to be set aside. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Provisional Attachment |
| Section of GST: Section 83 of CGST Act,2017 |
PDF of latest GST case laws
GST Case law on Interim Order | Recent GST Case laws 2022
Gauhati High Court says there is absolutely no scope for instant Court to continue with said interim order passed earlier
| High Court : Gauhati High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Schlumberger Solution (P.) Ltd. vs. Oil India Ltd. |
| Date of Judgment : 28-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : WP(C) NO. 4649 OF 2022 |
| Judges : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. |
| Counsel Name : S.K. Bagaria D. Bora and Omka |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioners in the instant case had contended that it was the duty of the respondent, Oil India Limited (OIL), to provide a uniform GST rate as a part of the price bid quoted against the tender notices for hiring services for the real-time production monitoring and analysis (RTPM) project at various OIL fields. The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Bharat Forge Ltd. v. Pr. Chief Materials Manager Diesel Locomotive Works [2021] 51 G.S.T.L 153 (All) was relied upon by the petitioners while issuing the notice of motion, and the instant court had passed an interim order directing that no further action be taken by OIL in respect of the letter of intent (LOI) issued until the returnable date. The question was whether the said interim order was to be continued in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Bharat Forge Ltd. [2022] . |
| Held by court : The petitioner changed the method of challenging after the Supreme Court’s judgment, and inconsistencies were observed in the petitioner’s stance at different stages. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in UOI v. Bharat Forge Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 296 (SC), which reversed the Allahabad High Court’s decision, there is no room for the current court to maintain the interim order previously issued. Therefore, the interim orders in writ petitions are revoked, and respondent-OIL can proceed with the subject tender process in compliance with the law. |
| In favor of : |
| Topic of GST : Interim order |
| Section of GST: Section 9 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on GST Appeal | Recent GST Case laws 2022
Calcutta High Court says If the Appellate Authority did not consider the representation made by the taxpayer, the matter must be reconsidered.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Devanshi Plyboard Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax, Goods & Services Tax, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) |
| Date of Judgment : 28-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : M.A.T. NO. 1493 OF 2022 I.A. NO. CAN 1 OF 2022 |
| Judges : .S. SIVAGNANAM AND SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Rituraj Chakraborty |
| Fact of the Case: The High Court, being the first judicial forum, had the power to review the correctness of the order passed by the appellate authority, as the GST Tribunal had not yet been established. Moreover, if an adverse report was drawn against an assessee, it was necessary to provide such report to the assessee so that they could present their contentions and all relevant facts. |
| Held by court : The representation submitted by the appellant was disregarded and the adverse report was not provided to them. Therefore, the appellate authority must provide a fresh hearing opportunity to the appellant upon payment of a part of the demanded amount. The matter should be re-decided with due consideration of the representation and report. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeals to Appellate Tribunal |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST case laws PDF
GST Case law on Scrutiny Notice| Recent GST laws 2022
Madras High Court says the issuance of a show cause notice and the passing of an order based on discrepancies that were not mentioned in the ASMT-10 scrutiny notice is not acceptable and cannot be sustained.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Vadivel Pyrotech (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 27-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (MD) NO. 22642 OF 2022 W.M.P. (MD) NOS.16803 AND 16804 OF 2022 |
| Judges : MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. |
| Counsel Name : N. Viswanathan |
| Fact of the Case: A scrutiny notice was issued in Form ASMT-10 under section 61 for certain discrepancies, however, a show cause notice in Form DRC-01 and a consequential order were issued/passed for different discrepancies. |
| Held by court : Issuing a DRC-01 notice without complying with the mandatory ASMT-10 notice, if the DRC-01 notice is a result of scrutiny under section 61, will invalidate the entire proceedings. Therefore, the case was sent back to the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh assessment. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Assessment Order & Scrutiny Notice |
| Section of GST: Section 61 of CGST Act,2017 & Rule 99 of CGST Rules 2017 |
Recent GST Case Laws 2022
GST Case law on Bail | Recent GST Case laws 2022
Punjab & Haryana High Court denies Bail to petitioner due to heavy tax evasion .
| High Court : Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Vipin Garg @ Bindu vs. State of Haryana |
| Date of Judgment : 27-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : CRM-M-27766-2022 |
| Judges : ANOOP CHITKARA, J. |
| Counsel Name : A.S. Shera |
| Fact of the Case: Based on initial evidence, it appears that the mobile number belonging to the accused petitioner and other related information are linked to the commission of the offense of tax evasion amounting to 6 crore rupees. |
| Held by court : Based on the examination of the accusations and evidence, the petitioner was not eligible for bail. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Bail -Tax Evasion |
| Section of GST: Section 132 of CGST Act,2017 |
recent gst judgment pdf
GST Case law on Advance Ruling | Recent GST Case laws 2022
High Court says the validity of an assessment order cannot be established on the basis of an advance ruling as an advance ruling is only binding on the applicant who has sought it and the concerned officer.
| High Court : Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Reliance Builders vs. Chief Commissioner of State Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 27-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 30447 OF 2022 |
| Judges : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, JJ |
| Counsel Name : Shaik Jeelani Basha |
| Fact of the Case: A writ petition was submitted to invalidate the findings of the assessing authority as they were founded on advance rulings and were beyond its jurisdiction. |
| Held by court : The assessing authority’s jurisdiction to levy tax on the supply of flats assigned to landowners under a Joint Development Agreement cannot be based on an advance ruling, as such rulings are binding only on the applicant and the concerned officer. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Advance Ruling |
| Section of GST: Section 103 of CGST Act,2017 |
PDF of latest GST case laws
GST Case law on Renting of residential property | Recent GST Case laws 2022
Delhi High Court says If a proprietor of a registered proprietorship firm rents a residential dwelling for their own personal use and not for the business of the proprietorship, and the renting is done in their personal capacity and not on behalf of the firm, then the rental is exempt from GST.
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Seema Gupta vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 27-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 10986 OF 2022 CM APPL. NO. 32131 OF 2022 |
| Judges : MANMOHAN AND MS. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Nidhi Gupta |
| Fact of the Case: . The validity of Clause (A)(b) of Notification No. 4/2022-Central Tax (Rate) was challenged on the grounds of being ultra vires under either Heading No. 9963 or Heading No. 9972. It was argued that the notification has removed the exemption previously granted by Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) for renting of residential accommodation to proprietor-tenants registered under GST, and this amendment is having a particular impact on those running businesses as proprietary concerns, including the petitioner. |
| Held by court : The act of a registered proprietor of a proprietorship firm renting a residential dwelling for personal use, and not for the purpose of furthering the business of the proprietorship firm, is exempt from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) provided that the renting is conducted on the proprietor’s personal account and not on behalf of the proprietorship firm. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Renting of residential accommodation |
| Section of GST: Section 11 of CGST Act,2017 |
PDF of latest GST case laws
GST Case law on Refund in case of Ocean freight | Recent GST case laws 2022
Supreme Court says the importer was not liable to pay IGST on ocean freight in case of goods imported under CIF contract and therefore, the refund of IGST already paid was permissible.
| High Court : Supreme Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Commercial Taxes Officer vs. Shree Mahesh Oil Products |
| Date of Judgment : 23-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : SLP (C) NO(S). 16138 OF 2022 |
| Judges : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND MS. HIMA KOHLI, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Vidhan Vyas, Vidur Dwivedi, Indra Lal, Advs. and Anantha Narayana M.G., AOR |
| Fact of the Case: The High Court’s order, which followed the Gujarat High Court’s decisions stating that Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) was not applicable to importers on ocean freight and that IGST refund already paid could not be denied, was challenged by the Revenue by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP). |
| Held by court : The matter in question had already been decided by the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee in the case of Union of India v. Mohit Mineral 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 257, and therefore the petition was to be dismissed. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Levy of IGST on importer & Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 5 of IGST Act,2017 |
supreme court judgement on ocean freight
GST Case law on Tobacco Product & NCCD | Recent GST Case laws 2022
High Court says excise duty & NCCD is leviable on tobacco & tobacco product apart from taxing under CGST Act
| High Court : Karnataka High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Ghodawat Packers LLP vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 21-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 145107, 101969, 123492, 146879 OF 2020 AND 101375 & 101916 OF 2021(T-RES) |
| Judges : M.I. ARUN, J. |
| Counsel Name : Sri. Shivadass, Sr. Counsel, Gangadhar J.M. and Sri. Prashant F. Goudar |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioners, who were involved in the manufacture and business of tobacco, argued that excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products was not payable from 1-7-2017 until the issuance of Notification No. 3/2019 dated 30-6-2019, by virtue of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Excise dated 30-6-2017. The assessee-petitioners were engaged in the manufacturing and business of tobacco. They contended that if excise duty was exempted, then the National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) could not be levied under the provisions of Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001. The assessee further argued that since the Central Excise Tariff Act was repealed, no effect could have been given to the seventh Schedule of the Finance Act, 2001, and since the NCCD is a surcharge of excise duty, it could not have been levied. |
| Held by court : The CGST Act, 2017 provides for the levy of Excise duty on goods covered under entry 84 of the Union list of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, which includes tobacco and tobacco products. The levy of excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products is a matter of public policy, and the court, in exercising writ jurisdiction, will not interfere with it. The CGST Act specifically provides for the levy of excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products, in addition to being taxed under the provisions of the CGST. Therefore, the revenue authorities are entitled to levy both CGST and excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products. The assessee’s contention that NCCD cannot be levied in the absence of excise duty, as Central Excise Tariff Act has been repealed, cannot be accepted since NCCD is a type of excise duty and can be levied independently as a surcharge as per the provisions of the fourth schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Finance Act seeks to levy NCCD on goods described under the Seventh Schedule, and thus the levy of NCCD in the absence of excise duty cannot be considered illegal. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Tobacco & Tobacco product , National calamity Contingent Duty |
| Section of GST: Section 9 & 174 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Demand | Recent GST Case laws 2022
Bombay High Court says Assessing officer can not arbitrarily reduced statutory period by 7 days
| High Court : Bombay High Court Judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Sheetal Dilip Jain vs.State of Maharashtra |
| Date of Judgment : 20-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION (L) NO.17591 OF 2022 |
| Judges : K.R. SHRIRAM AND A.S. DOCTOR, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Rahul C. Thakar |
| Fact of the Case: As per Section 73(8) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a person who is liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of a show cause notice to make payment of the tax along with interest as per Section 50 of the same Act. However, in the present case, the show cause notice only allowed for a response within 7 days, and on the 8th day, the impugned order was passed. |
| Held by court : As a result, there was no question of not paying within 30 days of the issuance of the notice. The statutory period could not be arbitrarily reduced to 7 days by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the impugned order must be set aside. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST Demand |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Writ Jurisdiction |Recent GST Case laws 2022
High court says As the order confirming tax and penalty is appealable, the writ petition should be resolved with a directive to the petitioner to file an appeal.
| High Court : Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement 2022 |
| Name of case : Bitumon Corporation India (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh |
| Date of Judgment : 16-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 17061 OF 2022 |
| Judges : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : |
| Fact of the Case: The writ petition raised issues related to the seizure of goods due to a mismatch in the company’s name on the tax invoice. These issues cannot be resolved without considering the factual aspects of the case. |
| Held by court : The order that upheld the tax and penalty could be appealed, and the petition should be dismissed with an instruction for the petitioner to file an appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Writ Jurisdiction |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
FAQS
What is the Supreme Court decision on RCM on ocean freight?
Supreme Court says the importer was not liable to pay IGST on ocean freight in case of goods imported under CIF contract and therefore, the refund of IGST already paid was permissible
What is the decision of Supreme Court on GST refund?
Supreme Court has decision to refund of IGST paid by importer in case of ocean fright.
Can bail be rejected in high court?
Yes , Bail can rejected in high court. In case of Vipin Garg @ Bindu vs. State of Haryana in Punjab & Haryana case bail was rejected in high court
Read similar article
