The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws 2023. All latest high court judgements on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in December 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of December 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 Anti-Profiteering | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Telangana High court says the operator was instructed to submit a detailed response to address these concerns.
| High Court : Telangana High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Vishwanath Cinema Hall vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment :12-12-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NOS. 26871 OF 2019 |
| Judges : P. SAM KOSHY AND N. TUKARAMJI, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, a cinema operator, received a show cause notice from the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering. The notice alleged that the petitioner failed to pass on the benefit of a reduction in entertainment tax to end consumers, violating section 171. The petitioner argued that it was challenging to independently lower ticket prices since the state authorities fixed them. At the relevant time, the government-set price included the entertainment tax. The petitioner also stated that while ticket prices weren’t reduced, the base price had increased, and taxes were paid to the government on the augmented base price. |
| Held by court : As the notice was solely issued to request the petitioner to provide relevant documents, the petitioner hasn’t presented a compelling case justifying intervention. The petitioner can choose to appear before the relevant authorities by submitting a comprehensive response. Following this, the authorities will proceed in accordance with the law, considering the contents of the reply and the documents submitted by the petitioner. However, given the digital era, the Competition Commission of India should facilitate the option for individuals interested in presenting their case before the Commission virtually, rather than mandating physical presence. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Anti profiteering |
| Section of GST: Section 171 of CGST Act,2023 |
GST Case law on Registration | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Delhi High Court says the cancellation of the GST registration with a retrospective date, based on non-filing of returns, should be annulled, and the registration should be canceled from the date the assessee ceased business operations.
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Pratima Tyagi vs. Commissioner of GST |
| Date of Judgment : 13-12-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 16016 OF 2023 |
| Judges : VIBHU BAKHRU AND AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Dinesh Mohan Singha, Wakil Kumar and Rajeev Deora |
| Fact of the Case: The taxpayer shut down her business and submitted a request to cancel her GST registration on November 11, 2019. Despite this, the application was not processed. Subsequently, the proper officer issued a show cause notice suggesting the cancellation of the taxpayer’s GST registration, citing non-filing of returns for a continuous six-month period. The show cause notice did not specify a date and time for the hearing. The proper officer then issued the contested order canceling the taxpayer’s GST registration retroactively from July 1, 2017. |
| Held by court : It was observed that the contested order was issued without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the order revoked registration retroactively from July 1, 2017, citing non-filing of returns for six months. However, there was no justification for canceling the petitioner’s GST registration during periods when returns were being filed. The order to cancel the GST registration was to be effective from November 11, 2019, and not from July 1, 2017. Nevertheless, the authorities were not barred from taking appropriate legal actions if the petitioner was found to have defaulted on statutory obligations. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 29 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Best assessment order | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Madras High court says The best judgment assessment orders issued by the respondent authority, which led to attaching the petitioner’s bank account after the cancellation of GST registration, should be annulled,
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Anand Cini Services (P.) Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer (ST) |
| Date of Judgment :12-12-2023 |
| Appeal No : WP NOS. 4675 & 4676 OF 2023 & OTHS. W.M.P. NOS. 4681 & 4682 OF 2023 & OTHS. |
| Judges : KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. |
| Counsel Name : D. Vijayakumar |
| Fact of the Case:Due to the sudden demise of the assessee’s GST consultant owing to COVID, they couldn’t file GST returns since 2019, resulting in the cancellation of their registration; due to pandemic-related challenges, the assessee couldn’t promptly pursue registration restoration; subsequently, the authority initiated assessment proceedings, issued personal hearing notices, and passed best judgment assessment orders for the years 2019-20 to 2022-23, considering pre-cancellation turnover, followed by initiating recovery proceedings by attaching the assessee’s bank account without prior notice or demand. |
| Held by court : As the assessee filed returns for Assessment Years 2019-20 to 2022-23 following the restoration of GST registration, the best judgment assessment orders issued by the respondent authority should be annulled, and the authority should be instructed to issue fresh assessment orders. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Best assessment order on Restoration of GST Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 62 & 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund of ITC | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Bombay High court says the order should be canceled, and the case should be sent back to the authorities for a fresh review.
| High Court : Bombay High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Sweta Distributors (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 04-12-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 2663 OF 2023 |
| Judges : G.S. KULKARNI AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Parth Badheka and Ms. Nikita Badheka |
| Fact of the Case: The denial of the input tax credit (ITC) refund raises concerns of natural justice infringement. The authorities rejected the refund application based on Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017, a provision not mentioned in the show cause notice and not communicated to the assessee. Additionally, the order-in-original was issued without affording the petitioner sufficient opportunity to submit relevant documents, despite the petitioner uploading them on a later date. |
| Held by court : , The order-in-original lacks any rationale for rejecting the refund application. Consequently, the impugned order ought to be set aside. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund of ITC |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Input tax credit | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Rajasthan High court says the court couldn’t issue an interim order. Instead, the Appellate Authority in the statutory appeal is the appropriate entity to examine this aspect.
| High Court : Rajasthan High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Tata Motor Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 18-12-2023 |
| Appeal No : D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NOS. 19966 & 19967 OF 2023 |
| Judges : ARUN BHANSALI AND ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Tushar Jarwal, Nitin Jain and Pranav Bansal |
| Fact of the Case:The assessee contested the imposition of tax demand by the authority, citing the failure to provide evidence, such as debit entries in the Electronic Credit Ledger or books of accounts of its dealers, to demonstrate the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC). Additionally, the assessee challenged the constitutionality of Section 15(3)(b)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017. As an alternative, the assessee sought a direction for the Appellate Authority to accept and unconditionally hear the appeal to be filed against the contested orders of October 30, 2023, and October 31, 2023, without requiring any deposit, including the 10% of the disputed tax liability. |
| Held by court : The Court refrained from prematurely adjudicating on the merits of orders passed and the adequacy of the material presented for the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC). However, regarding the challenge raised against the authority for allegedly not properly considering the material submitted to substantiate the reversal of ITC, and considering the respondents’ assertion of the requirement and the assessee’s inability to produce the same, this aspect can be appropriately examined by the Appellate Authority in the statutory appeal. A similar writ petition questioning the validity of Section 15(3)(b)(ii) of the Act is pending consideration before the court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Union of India:D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 13617/2023. Therefore, no interim order could be granted by the coordinate bench, and consequently, the assessee cannot seek a stay of the demand. The matter should be directed to the Appellate Authority for further proceedings. |
| In favor of : Matter remanded |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 16 & 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Anticipatory Bail | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Orissa High Court says seeking anticipatory bail is not appropriate at the stage where only a summon has been issued and not an arrest warrant or any criminal charges.
| High Court : Orissa High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Suchismita Mohanty vs. State of Odisha |
| Date of Judgment :18-12-2023 |
| Appeal No : ABLAPL NO. 12984 OF 2023 |
| Judges : SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. |
| Counsel Name : S. Mohanty |
| Fact of the Case: In anticipation of potential arrest related to a summons issued under Section 70 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017, the petitioner has filed an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner has been directed to appear before the Joint Commissioner of CT and GST Enforcement Range, Cuttack, to provide truthful evidence on matters pertaining to the inquiry and to produce relevant documents. However, the petitioner is concerned that appearing as directed might result in her being taken into custody. |
| Held by court : The petitioner’s fear of being taken into custody upon appearance seemed unfounded, and according to established legal principles, an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. could not be considered when only a summons had been issued under section 70 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the petitioner was instructed to comply with the summons and provide full cooperation in the ongoing investigation. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Anticipatory Bail |
| Section of GST: Section 70 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on GSTR-1 Form | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Calcutta High Court says the State and Central GST authorities should allow the taxpayer to manually submit the corrected GSTR-1 form
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Techno Waxchem (P.) Ltd. vs. Goods and Services Tax Council |
| Date of Judgment : 20-12-2023 |
| Appeal No : WPA 27326 OF 2023 |
| Judges : MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J. |
| Counsel Name : Debanuj Basu Thakur, Vipul Kundalia and Tapan Bhanja |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner has filed the current writ petition seeking a directive for the GST authority to permit the petitioner to amend the GSTR-1 form, either manually or online. The petitioner contends that the error in the aforementioned form was unintentional and made in good faith. Conversely, the revenue argues that the petitioner was already provided with an opportunity to rectify the mistake once, and this represents the second instance where the petitioner has committed a similar error. |
| Held by court : Considering the unique facts and circumstances of the present case and with a focus on ensuring justice, it is appropriate to instruct both the State and Central GST authorities involved to permit the petitioner to submit the corrected GSTR-1 Form manually. Furthermore, upon receiving the corrected forms from the petitioner, the authorities should take all necessary actions. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GSTR-1 |
| Section of GST: Section 38 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Show cause notice issued for reversal of ITC | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Madhya Pradesh High Court says it is not appropriate for the taxpayer to raise the same issue in a separate legal petition (writ petition) instead of allowing the tax authority to adjudicate the matter through its established procedures.
| High Court : Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Taran Angad Traders (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 21-12-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 29545 OF 2023 |
| Judges : ROHIT ARYA AND AMAR NATH KESHARWANI, JJ |
| Counsel Name : Ravi Dwivedi |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner/assessee received a show cause notice alleging the utilization of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) without subsequent reversal. The notice asserted that neither the monthly GSTR 3B filings for the relevant months reflected any reversal of the excess ITC, nor was any interest payment made for the purportedly excessive utilization. Despite responding to the show cause notice, the petitioner chose to challenge it in the current writ petition. |
| Held by court : Once the assessee submitted a response to the show cause notice issued by the revenue, it was inappropriate to entertain the assessee’s contentions related to both jurisdiction and the merits of the show cause notice. The relevant authority was expected to address the issues raised in the reply and proceed to pass an order |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Show cause notice for reversal of ITC |
| Section of GST: Section 21 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Opportunity of hearing| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Madhya Pradesh High court says Even in situations where the assessee does not request it, they must be given a chance to be heard
| High Court : Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Technosys Security System (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes |
| Date of Judgment : 05-12-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 13618 AND 13667 OF 2023 |
| Judges : SUJOY PAUL AND BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Jatin Harjai, Adv., Mohit Kumar Soni and Ayush Gupta |
| Fact of the Case: In cases where the appellate authority is considering a decision that would negatively affect the assessee, it is not only obligatory but also mandatory for the department to offer the assessee a chance for a personal hearing. This requirement holds true even if the assessee has not explicitly requested such a hearing. |
| Held by court : Failing to provide this opportunity for a personal hearing invalidates the decision-making process undertaken by the department, as it contradicts the fundamental principles of natural justice.” |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Principal of Natural Justice |