The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST new case laws May 2024. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in May 2024 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of May 2024 in this article have been classified by name, date, judge, counsel, GST concept, GST section, etc. In addition, a PDF of the GST case law is provided with the case law so that the user can download it for further study.
GST Case law on Opportunity for Fresh Hearing | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Delhi High Court says assessee will get another chance to speak up, and then the Proper Officer will make a new decision.
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Ethos Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer |
| Date of Judgment :17-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 6989 OF 2024 CM APPS. NO. 29079, 29080 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SANJEEV SACHDEVA AND RAVINDER DUDEJA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Kavita Jha |
| Fact of the Case: The situation involves a decision made without explanation, where the response and evidence provided by the Assessee/Petitioner weren’t properly considered. As a result, the case is being sent back for a fresh review. Despite the Assessee/Petitioner submitting a detailed response with supporting documents, the person in charge of making the decision dismissed the response without giving a valid reason. |
| Held by court : The writ petition has been resolved. The decision being challenged has been overturned because it lacked explanation. The case is sent back to the Proper Officer for a new hearing and decision. The Proper Officer must listen to both sides and provide a detailed explanation for their decision after considering the response and evidence presented. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Section 73 of CGST Act.2017 |
| Section of GST: Section of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Granted Access to Non-Relied Documents and Cross-Examination Rights| Recent GST Case laws 2024
Madhya Pradesh High court directed the Revenue to provide the original non-relied documents
| High Court : Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 20-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 12326 OF 2024 |
| Counsel Name : Abhinav Malhotra |
| Fact of the Case: The Assessee/Petitioner has requested access to documents that haven’t been used as evidence yet and the chance to question witnesses provided by the opposing party. This request comes in response to show cause notices issued by the authorities, which accuse the Assessee/Petitioner of clandestinely supplying cigarettes without proper documentation, and demand payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and cess. |
| Held by court : The writ petition has been approved. According to Section 67(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, the Revenue is obligated to provide non-relied documents within 30 days of issuing a show cause notice. The Assessee/Petitioner has the right to access these documents to prepare their defense. Additionally, the principles of natural justice require that the Assessee/Petitioner be allowed to cross-examine witnesses at the appropriate time. Therefore, the court has directed the Revenue to provide the original non-relied documents, give the Assessee/Petitioner 30 days to respond after receiving the documents, provide a personal hearing, and allow cross-examination of witnesses at the appropriate stage. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Release of non-relied documents |
| Section of GST: Section 67(3) of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Extension of Adjudication Time Limits due to Covid -19| Recent GST Case laws 2024
Allahabad High Court says the government issued notifications extending the time for Adjudicating Authorities to make decisions on cases from the 2017-18 financial year until December 31, 2023.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Graziano Trasmissioni vs. Goods and Services Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 31-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 1256 OF 2023 AND OTHS. |
| Judges : DONADI RAMESH AND SUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Suyash Agarwal, Aaditya Pandey, Atul Gupta, Rishi Raj Kapoor, Manoj Kumar Sinha, Rajneesh Tripathi, Arjit Gupta, Manish Gupta, Punit Kumar Upadhyay, Indra Deo Mishra, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Anurag Mishra, Pragya Pandey, Nitin Kumar Kesarwani and Vinayak Mithal |
| Fact of the Case: Between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic caused disruptions. To address this, the Government issued Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax (CGST) on March 31, 2023, and Notification No. 515/XI-2-23-9 (47)/17-T.C.215-U.P.Act-1-2017-Order-(273)-2023 on April 24, 2023. These notifications extended the time limit for Adjudicating Authorities to issue adjudication orders for proceedings related to the financial year 2017-18 until December 31, 2023. An assessee challenged these notifications. |
| Held by court : The authority had the power to issue notifications extending the time limit for adjudication. These extensions were not excessive. Therefore, any petitions challenging the issuance of these notifications are unlikely to succeed. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Time limit extension of Adjudication Order |
| Section of GST: Section of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Denial Relief for Failing to Follow Prescribed Procedure | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Sikkim High Court says the assessee did not follow the required procedure, they are not entitled to any relief against the order rejecting their claim.
| High Court : Sikkim High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 06-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (C) NO. 2 OF 2023 |
| Judges : BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J. |
| Counsel Name : Rahul Tangri, Ms. Gita Bista, Ms. Pratikcha Gurung,Ms. Tanya Roy and Dipendra Chettri |
| Fact of the Case: In the State of Sikkim, the petitioner-assessee filed a claim under a budgetary support scheme. Initially, this claim was rejected. The assessee challenged the rejection, and the court set aside the rejection order. Following the court’s decision, the assessee made claims for budgetary support for four quarters. Out of these four claims, three were accepted, and budgetary support was granted. The assessee argued that they had met all the conditions of the budgetary support scheme. However, their claim for one of the quarters was denied based on an incorrect interpretation of the scheme and a circular issued by the Central Government. The assessee contended that the authorities improperly relied on the format and formula provided in the circular, which should not override the provisions of the budgetary support scheme itself. |
| Held by court : The budgetary scheme clearly required that claims be filed on a quarterly basis. The assessee, however, did not follow this requirement and instead filed separate claims for July 2017 and August 2017. Because the assessee did not adhere to the scheme’s requirements, they are not entitled to the relief they are seeking in this writ petition. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Budgetary support |
| Section of GST : Section 9 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Consideration of Assessee’s Revocation of Registration application | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Orissa High Court says if the assessee deposits all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, etc., and fulfills other requirements, their application for revocation will be considered.
| High Court : Orissa High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Achyuta Nanda Sethi vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST |
| Date of Judgment : 09-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 11801 OF 2024 |
| Judges : DR. B.R. SARANGI AND G. SATAPATHY, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Itishree Tripathy |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee’s application to revoke the cancellation of their registration was initially rejected due to exceeding the time limit. However, upon filing a writ against this rejection, the respondent stated that if the delay is condoned and the assessee fulfills all requirements by paying taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, etc., their filed 3B Return Form will be accepted by the department. |
| Held by court : The respondent acknowledged that the delay in the assessee’s invocation of the proviso to Rule 23 of OGST Rules should be condoned. Additionally, if the assessee deposits all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, etc., and fulfills other requirements, their application for revocation will be considered according to the law. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 30 of CGST Act,2017 & Rule 23 of CGST Rules,2017 |
GST Case law on Denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for Fake Suppliers | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Allahabad High Court says Mere Registration of Supplier Not Sufficient if Entity is Non-Existent.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement |
| Name of case : Rajshi Processors vs. State of U.P. |
| Date of Judgment : 14-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 128 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. |
| Counsel Name : Anurag Mishra |
| Fact of the Case: The High Court upheld the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a business that claimed it based on invoices from three suppliers. Upon investigation, the tax authorities found that these suppliers were fake and did not exist at the given addresses, meaning no actual goods were supplied. Despite the suppliers having valid registrations at the time, the documents provided by the business were deemed unreliable. Since the business did not actually receive the goods, a requirement under Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act, the denial of ITC was justified. The court also rejected the argument that ITC should be allowed because it was initially granted and the suppliers were registered, stating that corrective action can be taken for wrongly claimed ITC. |
| Held by court : The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that merely having a registered supplier is not enough to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) if the supplier is a non-existent entity. The court upheld the tax authorities’ decision to deny ITC to the petitioner because the suppliers were found to be fake and did not actually supply any goods. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 16(2)(b) of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case Law onTax Liability on Transfer of Development Rights | Recent GST Case Laws 2024
Supreme Court didn’t stop this decision from being enforced, taxes must be paid according to it.
| High Court : Supreme Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Prahitha Constructions (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 13-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 11079 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SANJIV KHANNA AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Mukul Rohatgi,Ms. Ranjeet Rohatgi, Abhishek A Rastogi, Pratyushprava Saha, Ms. Sachi Upadhyaya, Ajay Singh,Shubham Singh |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, a skilled developer of commercial real estate, entered into a Joint Development Agreement with landowners to build buildings on their property. They questioned in court whether this transfer of development rights should be considered a sale of land or a service under GST. The High Court ruled that it falls under GST as no ownership was transferred to the petitioner. They also confirmed that the GST imposed on such transfers is valid. Now, the petitioner has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. |
| Held by court : The Supreme Court did not stop the decision from being enforced, so taxes must be paid as per that decision. Additionally, a notice has been issued regarding this matter. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Transfer of Developement Rights of land |
| Section of GST: Section 7 & 9 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case Laws on Appellate Authority’s Error in Condoning Delay | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Calcutta High Court says by not considering the application, the Appellate Authority failed to use its proper authority.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Jalajoga vs. State of West Bengal |
| Date of Judgment : 07-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : WPA NO. 9911 OF 2024 |
| Judges : MIR DARA SHEKO, J. |
| Counsel Name : Siddhartha Pratim Datta, Ms. Sukanya Datta, Ms. Sanjana Jha, Rhitam Chatterjee |
| Fact of the Case: The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority because it was filed late. The question is whether the Appellate Authority made a mistake by not considering an application to excuse the delay, simply because it was submitted more than one month after the deadline. |
| Held by court : Since there is no specific rule stating that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1960, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply, it is wrong to assume they are excluded. This means the Appellate Authority still has the power to excuse delays even if they are more than one month past the deadline set by Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority failed to use its power correctly when it rejected the application to excuse the delay. As a result, the order of the Appellate Authority was canceled, the delay was excused, and the appeal was reinstated. The Appellate Authority was instructed to consider the appeal based on its merits, following all necessary procedures, including the payment of any required pre-deposits. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case Laws on Permanent Bail Granted Due to Extended Pre-Trial Detention | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Punjab & Haryana High court says the interim bail order should be made permanent.
| High Court : Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Prem Raj Meena vs. State of Haryana |
| Date of Judgment :06-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : CRM-M NO. 19670 OF 2024 (O & M) |
| Judges : ANOOP CHITKARA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Ms. Tejaswini, |
| Fact of the Case: the petitioner was arrested for criminal conspiracy and extortion and sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.). The Court granted him interim bail on April 26, 2024.The issue began when Dinesh complained that the petitioner, a GST official, and a Chartered Accountant (CA) demanded a bribe from him. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against both the petitioner and the CA before the Special Judge. The prosecution obtained the required approval to proceed against the petitioner. However, the investigation is still ongoing. The police are waiting for Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports. Once these reports are received and the investigation is complete, they plan to submit a final charge sheet to the Special Court as soon as possible. |
| Held by court : Given the nature of the allegations, the specific facts of this case, and the fact that the petitioner has already been in jail for more than two months before the trial, there is no reason to keep him in jail any longer before the trial. Therefore, the interim bail order dated April 26, 2024, should be made permanent. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Arrest |
| Section of GST: Section 69 & 132 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case Laws on Stay on GST Applicability on Corporate Gurantee | Recent GST Case laws 2024
| High Court : Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Acme Cleantech Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 03-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : CWP NO. 10249 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA AND SUKHVINDER KAUR, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sujit Ghosh,Abhinav Sood, Ms. Mannat Waraich, Ms. Anshika Agarwal and Anmol Gupta, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner is arguing that a specific clarification mentioned in a circular dated 27.10.2023 about the tax implications of a ‘corporate guarantee’ given by one related person for another, or by a holding company for its subsidiary’s credit facilities, goes against the powers of the Appellate Authority. They believe this clarification is like making a judgment or decision, which is not the purpose of filing an appeal, and therefore, it shouldn’t be considered valid. |
| Held by court : This instruction means that Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST dated 27-10-2023, specifically regarding Item No.2, will not have any effect or operation for now and it shall remain suspended. The Appellate Authority can proceed to decide the case of the taxpayer without considering or being influenced by the clarification provided in the mentioned Circular. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Corporate Guarantee by related person |
| Section of GST: Section 9 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Unfair Proceedings by Ignoring Evidence and Denying Opportunity for Clarification | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Calcutta High Court say the decision to demand additional taxes from the taxpayer was made due to a misunderstanding as the certificates proving tax payment from suppliers were disregarded, thus necessitating a reversal of the decision.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Lokenath Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. Tax/Revenue, Government of West Bengal |
| Date of Judgment : 02-05-2024 |
| Appeal No : WPA NO. 5222 OF 2024 |
| Judges : T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J. HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J. |
| Counsel Name : T.M. Siddique, Arnab Chakraborty, Aniket Chaudhury, Tanoy Chakraborty, Saptak Sanyal |
| Fact of the Case: The tax authorities issued a notice to a business, saying that they had wrongly claimed a tax credit on their purchases. The authorities claimed that the business couldn’t prove that the suppliers they bought from had actually paid their taxes to the government.The business tried to defend itself by providing certificates from Chartered Accountants, saying that the suppliers did pay their taxes. However, the tax authorities didn’t accept these certificates. They said that the information in the certificates didn’t match the information available on the government’s online tax portal. As a result, the tax authorities upheld their original demand for the wrongly claimed tax credit. |
| Held by court : The tax authorities didn’t give the business a chance to explain things properly. They didn’t ask the business for any clarifications before making their decision. Also, they ignored important documents provided by the business, like the tax invoices and certificates from Chartered Accountants. This was a mistake on their part and not fair to the business.If the tax authorities doubted whether the suppliers paid their taxes, they should have checked with the suppliers first. It’s not right to penalize the business without doing that. So, the decision they made to demand the wrongly claimed tax credit should be overturned because it was unfair and not done properly. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand & Recovery & wrongfully availed ITC |
| Section of GST: Section 73 & 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article