The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws 2023. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in May 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of May 2023 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 Writ Petition | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Rajasthan High Court says Since the assessee did not file an appeal within the prescribed time limit as specified in Section 107, and instead filed a writ petition almost eight months after the limitation period had expired, the writ petition filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order was to be dismissed.
| High Court : Rajasthan High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Malik Khan vs. Chief Commissioner GST and Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 03-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2785 OF 2023 |
| Judges : VIJAY BISHNOI AND PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sharad Kothari |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee, a proprietor-firm in the hospitality sector with GST registration, received an intimation letter from the department regarding the tax payable under Section 73(5), but failed to provide a response. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee, to which they also did not reply. As a result, an order determining the amount payable under Section 73 was issued. The present writ petition was filed, challenging the validity of the order on the grounds of the department’s alleged violation of the principles of natural justice by not properly determining and specifying the reasons for creating the demand against the assessee. |
| Held by court : According to Section 107, there is a 30-day limitation period for challenging the impugned order through an appeal, which can be extended by the appellate authority for an additional month if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party was prevented by valid reasons from filing the appeal within three months. In this case, the assessee did not file an appeal before the appellate authority within the prescribed limitation period and instead filed a writ petition nearly eight months after the expiration of the limitation period. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the assessee to challenge the impugned order was not valid and should be dismissed. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Writ Petition |
| Section of GST: Section 73 and section 107 of CGST Act ,2017 |
GST Case law on Short payment of Tax | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Allahabad High Court says that the validity of the proceedings initiated by the revenue under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act is not affected by the non-issuance of a notice under Section 61. Hence, the revenue’s proceedings were deemed valid, and the assessee was granted the opportunity to exercise their right of appeal.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. |
| Date of Judgment : 15-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 336 OF 2023 |
| Judges : ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA AND VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Shubham Agrawal |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner-assessee had filed returns for the assessment year 2019-20. The respondent-revenue, however, did not issue any notice under Section 61 but instead initiated proceedings under Section 74 against the assessee based on certain grounds related to the classification and consequent tax payment of certain goods. After examining the issue, the revenue passed an order determining that there was a shortfall in the previously paid tax and raised a demand for the appropriate payment of the tax shortfall, along with interest and penalty. The question arises as to whether the department was required to issue a notice under sub-section 3 of Section 61 before initiating action under Section 74 of the Act, considering that the returns had already been submitted by the petitioner. |
| Held by court : The absence of notices issued under Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act does not imply that issues related to classification or short payment of tax cannot be addressed under Section 74. The exercise of power under Section 74 is not contingent upon the issuance of notices under Section 61. Consequently, the petitioner’s arguments were rejected, and the proceedings were deemed valid. Furthermore, it was noted that the petitioner had the option to file an appeal, which they had not yet pursued. Therefore, the petitioner was given permission to file such an appeal within two weeks from the present date, should they choose to do so. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Determination of Tax , Short Payment of Tax |
| Section of GST: Section 61 of CGST Act,2017 & Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Provisional attachment of bank account | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Delhi High Court says the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Meerut lacked jurisdiction over the territories where the petitioner’s principal place of business was situated, and therefore, did not have the authority to issue an attachment order concerning the petitioner as a taxable person
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Sidhivinayak Chemtech (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST |
| Date of Judgment : 16-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 17547 OF 2022 |
| Judges : VIBHU BAKHRU AND AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Vivek Sarin, Ajay Kumar Dubey, Dibya Prashant Singh, Ms. Divyansh Singh, Satish C. Kaushik and Akash Gupta |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner was registered as a taxable person for two principal places of business: the first in Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana, and the second in Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. |
| Held by court : It is acknowledged that the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Meerut does not cover Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana, nor does it extend to Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be interpreted in conjunction with Sections 3 and 5 of the same Act. Hence, the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Meerut did not have jurisdiction over the territories where the petitioner’s principal places of business were located and was not authorized to issue an attachment order against the petitioner as a taxable person. According to Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the assets of a person falling under Sub-section (1A) of Section 122 can only be attached by a Commissioner who has jurisdiction over that taxable person. Furthermore, no allegations were made that the petitioner retained any benefit from the alleged transactions mentioned in the specified clauses of Section 122(1) of the Act. On the contrary, it was alleged that the petitioner company was established as a dummy company to fraudulently claim Input Tax Credit (ITC). Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. The provisional attachment of property should not be based solely on suspicion that the petitioner was a dummy company, especially considering that the suspicion was based on statements about one of the directors being associated with M/s Best Agrolife Group, without considering the corporate documents of the petitioner. The Commissioner is required to form an opinion to attach the property of a taxable person based on relevant facts and not solely on grounds of suspicion. The petitioner’s bank accounts cannot be attached based on mere suspicion. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Provisional attachment of Bank Account & Penalty |
| Section of GST: Section 83 of CGST Act,2017 & section 122 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Detention of Goods and Conveyance | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Madras High Court says Upon the interception and detention of the consignment of goods by the authorities on the basis that the supplier had incorrectly passed on Input Tax Credit, the assessee filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, complying with the requirement of paying 25% of the disputed penalty. The release of the goods was contingent upon the provision of a Bank Guarantee or payment in cash amounting to 200% of the tax.
| High Court : MadrasHigh Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Haresh Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 05-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.NO. 14628 OF 2023 |
| Judges : C. SARAVANAN, J. |
| Counsel Name : G. Natarajan |
| Fact of the Case: After the assessee transported a consignment of goods, it was intercepted and detained by the authorities. An order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 was issued. Although the consignment was accompanied by an e-Way Bill, the goods were detained by the officer on the grounds that the supplier, from whom the assessee purchased the goods, had wrongly passed on Input Tax Credit. The assessee argued that the movement of goods complied with the provisions of the GST Act and Rules, and a statutory appeal under section 107 was filed before the Appellate Authority after paying 25% of the disputed penalty. The assessee further contended that once a pre-deposit of the required amount was made under section 107(6), the officer should have released the goods. |
| Held by court : Once the order was stayed, the goods could be released, subject to any other safeguards imposed by the Appellate Authorities under the respective Acts. The officer who detained the goods became functus officio, meaning that their authority ended, once the mandatory pre-deposit was made, and the order had no legal force. Any further recovery proceedings would be dependent on the final outcome of the appeal. Consequently, the assessee was instructed to deposit the maximum penalty of 200% of the tax, after adjusting the amount already deposited, or provide a Bank Guarantee as per section 129(c) of the Act. Upon furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the remaining penalty amount or making the payment in cash, the goods should be released. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Detention of goods and Conveyance |
| Section of GST: Section 129 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
High Court says the assessee, who was exporting services without paying IGST and filed a refund application, had their application rejected on the basis that the services provided qualified as an intermediary service according to the definition in section 2(13). However, due to insufficient analysis of the actual work performed by the assessee, the challenged order was required to be overturned and the case remanded back for further consideration.
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Netgear Technologies India (P.) Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner CGST Appeals |
| Date of Judgment : 18-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 10704 OF 2022 |
| Judges : VIBHU BAKHRU AND AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Priyanka Rathi and Ashwini Chandrasekaran |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee was involved in the business of exporting services to Netgear Pte. Ltd. without paying Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and subsequently filed a refund application to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC). However, a show cause notice was issued to reject the refund, stating that the assessee was functioning as an intermediary according to the definition in Section 2(13) and therefore, the place of supply of services was in India. The assessee argued that they provided marketing and sales support services as per the agreement with Netgear Pte. Ltd, and the remuneration was based on a cost-plus approach. Both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority issued orders rejecting the refund claim of the assessee. |
| Held by court : The Adjudicating Authority solely referred to a specific clause in the agreement, which stated that the assessee would carry out reconciliation of sales for that year as a direct consequence of the service provider’s activities and would reasonably approve the costs incurred by the service provider in fulfilling its obligations under the agreement. However, it did not indicate that the remuneration was based on the achieved sales. Consequently, the determination of whether the entity was an intermediary had to be made based on the actual work performed. Therefore, the challenged order was required to be overturned, and the matter was to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a decision after examining the actual work performed by the assessee. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law Bail in case of Providing Documents to claim Fake ITC |Recent GST case laws 2023
Punjab & Haryana court held that petitioner has provided documents like PAN Card, Aadhar card and photographs to open bank account in the name of the firms to claim fake ITC
| High Court : Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Ravinder Kumar VS State of Haryana |
| Date of Judgment : 02-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : CRM-M 10845 of 2023 |
| Judges : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH |
| Counsel Name : Mr. P.S. Jammu |
| Fact of the Case: The prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.11.2022. He was named in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of Hawa Singh and Suresh Kumar @ Jon. The allegations against the petitioner are that he provided documents of identity proof on the basis of which account was opened in the name of fake firms and amount of input tax credit was got credited in the said account on the basis of forged bills. Challan has already been presented in this case. |
| Held by court :The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned also bind with some conditions |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic : Claiming Fraudulent ITC |
| Section : section 16 and section 132 of CGST Act, 2017. |
GST Case law on attachment of Bank account with out Notice | Recent GST case laws 2023
Orissa High Court Quashes writ petition and direct petitioner to file Appeal
| High Court : Orissa High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Twisha Educational Private Limited VS Addl. CT & GST Officer, Sambalpur-1 Circle, Sambalpur & Ors. |
| Date of Judgment : 01-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P (C) No.11358 of 2023 |
| Judges : DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN |
| Counsel Name : Mr. S. Ray, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. K.K. Sahoo, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner contended that the petitioner was not noticed in connection with the dues to be paid and the bank accounts of the petitioner have been attached by opposite party no.1 without issuing any notice. It is further contended that though the petitioner wanted to release the bank accounts, the same was not taken into consideration. |
| Held by court : The order impugned dated 05.04.2023 passed by opposite party no.1 rejecting the application of the petitioner for revoking the order of attachment of the bank accounts is appealable under Section 107 of OGST Act. Instead of approaching the appropriate authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, which is not maintainable before this Court. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Attachment of Bank account |
| Section of GST: Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Show cause notice | Recent GST case laws 2023
Madhya Pradesh High court says the show cause notice issued to the assessee was deemed invalid due to its lack of clarity in communicating relevant information and material. Therefore, it should be annulled, granting the competent authority the liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.
| High Court : Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Durge Metals vs. Appellate Authority and Joint Commissioner State Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 10-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 6124 OF 2020 |
| Judges : SHEEL NAGU AND HIRDESH, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Kapil Dugga |
| Fact of the Case: The show cause notice issued to the petitioner-assessee lacked clarity as it failed to provide relevant information and material, which prevented the petitioner from adequately responding to it. As a result, the dismissal of the appeal was legally flawed |
| Held by court : As per Section 75 of the CGST Act, it is mandatory for the revenue authority to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Failure to do so renders the resulting actions invalid. Therefore, the challenged orders and show cause notice should be annulled, granting the competent authority the liberty to proceed in accordance with the law. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Show cause notice & Demand |
| Section of GST: Section 75 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST case laws 2023
Delhi High Court says the order rejecting the assessee’s refund claim based on the non-submission of relevant documents should be overturned, as the assessee would have had the right to request an opportunity to provide the necessary documents before the Tribunal if the Appellate Tribunal had been constituted.
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : SRG Plastic Company vs. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Services Tax Trade and Tax Department |
| Date of Judgment : 02-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 5698 OF 2023 CM APPL. NO. 22331 OF 2023 |
| Judges : VIBHU BAKHRU AND AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Rakesh Kumar |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner’s refund claim was denied based on the grounds that the assessee did not submit the necessary documents and failed to attend the meeting with the relevant officer. |
| Held by court : If an application for refund includes all the necessary documents as specified under Rule 89, the application cannot be rejected as incomplete and must be processed. In the present case, the assessee had submitted most of the relevant documents, and if the Appellate Tribunal had been constituted, the petitioner would have been entitled to request an opportunity to submit the relevant documents before the Tribunal. Therefore, the order rejecting the assessee’s refund application should be overturned, and the matter should be remanded back to the appropriate officer. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 & Rule 89 of CGST Rules,2017 |
GST Case law on Appeal to Appellate Authority | Recent GST case laws 2023
Chhattisgarh High Court says the appeal filed by the assessee, with a delay of 536 days, against the order demanding short payment of GST was dismissed. The limitation period had expired after the normalization of the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Therefore, the writ petition against the dismissal order was also to be dismissed.
| High Court : Chhattisgarh High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Farhat Construction vs.State of Chhattisgarh |
| Date of Judgment : 02-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.T. NO. 285 OF 2022 |
| Judges : PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ashish Shrivastava, Jai Prakash Tiwari ,Rohisek Verma, |
| Fact of the Case: The appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee against the order demanding short payment of GST was dismissed on the grounds of limitation, stating that the appeal was barred by 536 days. |
| Held by court : According to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the extension of the limitation period of three months due to the COVID-19 pandemic ended in May 2022. The additional one-month extension, subject to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority as provided under section 107 (4), would have expired by the end of June. However, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order on October 7, 2022. Therefore, in the present case, the limitation period expired after the normalization of the COVID-19 pandemic situation. The writ petition was to be dismissed. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to Appellate authority |
| Section of GST: section 73 & 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Input Tax Credit | Recent GST case laws 2023
Rajasthan High Court says the order issued by the revenue authority, which demanded the return of input tax credit claimed by the petitioner without considering the fact that GST on the supplied items had already been paid by the suppliers, was to be invalidated. The revenue authority was to be directed to issue a fresh order in this matter.
| High Court : Rajasthan High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Gajrar Singh Ranawat vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 02-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5141 OF 2023 |
| Judges : VIJAY BISHNOI AND YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Vinay Kothari and Ayush Goyal |
| Fact of the Case:The revenue authority issued an order for the return of input tax credit claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the revenue authority was disregarding the fact that GST had already been paid by the suppliers of the supplied items. The revenue authority acknowledged that the order was issued without considering the payment of GST by the suppliers and requested a remand of the matter for fresh adjudication. |
| Held by court : The challenged order issued by the revenue authority was to be invalidated, instructing the revenue authority to issue a new order after affording the assessee an opportunity for a hearing. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Input tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Search of Business Premises | Recent GST case laws 2023
Allahabad High Court says the assessment order, which demanded an amount of tax, penalty, and interest from the assessee based on entries found in a diary recovered by the Special Investigation Branch during the inspection at the assessee’s resort, was to be upheld. The submission made by the assessee, claiming that the assessment order was based on presumption, had no merit.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Jalsa Resorts vs. State of U.P. |
| Date of Judgment : 01-05-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. – 206 OF 2022 |
| Judges : DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. |
| Counsel Name : Vaibhav Krishna, Mohit Pandey, Ratnesh Chandra |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner’s premises, which were used for organizing marriages and other functions, were inspected by the Special Investigation Branch. A notice under section 74 was issued to the petitioner, demanding an amount of Rs. 48,96,000 as tax, penalty, and interest. This demand was based on entries found in a diary recovered by the Special Investigation Branch, which indicated that the petitioner had received a much higher amount of advance than what was shown in the GST returns. The petitioner also failed to produce the relevant documents for assessing the correct tax from July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner’s contention that they were unwell and admitted to a hospital at the time of the search conducted by the Special Investigation Branch could not be upheld. If the petitioner was unable to produce the relevant documents during the raid, they should have submitted all the necessary documents to the Assessing Authority in response to the show cause notice issued to them. However, the petitioner never submitted those documents. |
| Held by court : The Appellate Authority had reduced the assessed amount from Rs. 48,96,000 to Rs. 38,56,680. The Appellate Authority thoroughly examined all the documents submitted by the petitioner as well as the documents recovered by the Special Investigation Branch. The petitioner’s claim that the assessment order was based on presumption had no merit. Therefore, there was no error in the challenged order, and as a result, the current writ petition lacked merit and substance and was to be rejected. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Search of Business Premises and demand |
| Section of GST: Section 74 & 71 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article