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 October 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of October 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 Classification issue| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Madras High Court says Flavored Milk should be classified under Heading No 0402 as per Notification No.1/2017-CT(Rate).
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Parle Agro (P.) Ltd. vs.Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 31-10-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NOS. 16608 & 16613 OF 2020 ,W.M.P. NOS. 20602 & 20604 OF 2020 |
| Judges : C. SARAVANAN, J |
| Counsel Name : Vijay Narayan and Rahul Unnikrishnan |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, Britannia Industries Ltd., contested the decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) regarding the classification of UHT Sterilized Flavoured Milk for GST purposes. The AAR, following the GST Council’s recommendations, determined that this product does not fall under the tariff headings 0402 or 0404. Instead, it is classified under CTH 2202 99 30. The core issue was whether Flavoured Milk should be categorized as a ‘beverage containing milk’ under HS Code 2202, attracting a GST rate of 12%, or as ‘milk and cream’ under Chapter 0402, with a GST rate of 5%. |
| Held by court : The argument presented is that ‘flavoured milk’, originating from dairy milk of milch cattle or other dairy animals, does not belong to Chapter 22. According to the principle of ‘Nosciter a sociss’, the term ‘beverage containing milk’ should refer exclusively to beverages made from plant or seed-based milk, potentially with a specific alcohol content. Therefore, ‘flavoured milk’ should be classified under Tariff Heading 0402 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1974, leading to a Central Tax of 2.5% as specified in Notification No.1/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017, under Sl No 8 in the First Schedule. This stance challenges the GST Council’s recommendation, asserting that it was incorrect. Furthermore, it is argued that while the GST Council can recommend tax rates, it does not have the authority to determine the classification of goods or services. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Classification of Product |
| Section of GST: Section 9 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Punjab & Haryana High Court says the State was not justified in denying the petitioner their due refund, which was a rightful gain from the litigation.
| High Court : Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Ganesh Steel (India) vs. State of Punjab |
| Date of Judgment : 31-10-2023 |
| Appeal No : CWP NO. 11082 OF 2023 |
| Judges : G. S. SANDHAWALIA AND MS. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Pradhuman Garg, |
| Fact of the Case: An order issued by the Assistant Commissioner levied a tax penalty and fine under section 130, which was later overturned by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under section 107; however, the State Tax Officer refused to issue a refund, citing that the Department was preparing to appeal against the decision of the Appellate Authority. |
| Held by court : The State was unjustly postponing the matter by claiming it was in the process of filing an appeal, despite never actually appealing the order, with over a year and four months having elapsed; consequently, it was not justified in depriving the petitioner of the benefits they were entitled to from the litigation, namely the refund that had accrued to them. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Demand & recovery | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Allahabad High Court says adjudication proceedings should not be disrupted by the extraordinary jurisdiction of a writ court, with challenges
| High Court :Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Bajrang Trading Company vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 27-10-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 1123 OF 2023 |
| Judges : SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH AND SURENDRA SINGH, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Pooja Talwar |
| Fact of the Case: During the period from August 2018 to March 2019, when allegations of legal violations arose, it was advised that adjudication proceedings should not be interrupted by the extraordinary jurisdiction of a writ court, except in cases of inherent lack of jurisdiction or similar grounds. The Proper Officer issued an adjudication notice based on a survey at the consignors’ premises, alleging their misuse of E-way Bills. |
| Held by court : There was a prima facie allegation that the petitioner was involved in this misuse. Consequently, the petitioner’s request for interference was to be rejected due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Demand & recovery |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Search & Seizure | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Gujarat High Court says Cash discovered during a search cannot be seized if it is not part of the stock-in-trade.
| High Court : Gujarat High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Bharatkumar Pravinkumar and Co. vs. State of Gujarat |
| Date of Judgment : 26-10-2023 |
| Appeal No : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26222 OF 2022 |
| Judges : BIREN VAISHNAV AND MRS. MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ |
| Counsel Name : Uchit N Sheth |
| Fact of the Case: If a proper officer seizes goods, documents, books, or items, they must believe they are pertinent or helpful for GST Act proceedings; the officer determined that the confiscated cash was unrelated to unexplained transactions under the GST Act, but was rather the received payment from the sale of silver bars |
| Held by court : Since the inquiry was not conducted by the Income Tax Department, the discovered cash couldn’t be seized; and if the cash wasn’t part of the stock-in-trade, its seizure wasn’t justified. The proper officer had no basis under the GST Act to believe that the seized cash would be relevant for CGST Act proceedings. Additionally, the absence of a notice regarding the seizure memo within six months of seizing the goods mandated their return to the individual from whom they were confiscated. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Search & Seizure |
| Section of GST: Section 67 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on GST Authorities & administration | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Bombay High Court says section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act, which prevents duplicate proceedings, does not apply in this context.
| High Court : Bombay High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Yash Alloys India vs.Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 23-10-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION (LODG) NOS. 28880 AND 29186 OF 2023 |
| Judges :G.S. KULKARNI AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Kevic Setalvad, & Jehan Lalkaka |
| Fact of the Case: Between 1st July 2017 and 31st March 2021, CGST Act proceedings were launched against the petitioner concerning fraudulent ITC during this period, while investigations under the MGST Act, from 1st April 2021 to 4th October 2023, focused on illegal refunds claimed by the petitioners. |
| Held by court : Therefore, section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act, which states that proceedings under the MGST Act cannot be initiated if similar proceedings are already underway under the CGST Act on the same subject, does not apply in this case. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST Authorities & Administration |
| Section of GST: Section 6 & 69 of CGST Act2017 |
GST Case law on Schedule of Rates | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Calcutta High Court says petitioners were allowed to submit relevant representations to the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Krishna Construction vs. State of West Bengal |
| Date of Judgment : 19-10-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.A. NO. 2430 OF 2023 |
| Judges : AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Himanshu Kumar Roy, Abhilash Mittal and Prosenjit Das, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, who had works contracts with a government entity during both the pre-GST and post-GST periods, received a payment certificate from the government without GST tax included. Subsequently, the GST authorities sent a show cause notice and a demand to pay tax and interest for the financial year 2017-2018. |
| Held by court : The respondent authorities were required to handle the extra tax burden for ongoing government contracts given to the petitioners, either before or after the GST regime, due to the failure to update the Schedule of Rates (SoR) with GST for billing. The petitioners could submit relevant appeals to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal, who would then make a final decision after consulting the necessary departments. Meanwhile, no forceful measures were to be taken against the petitioners by the concerned respondents. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Schedules of Rates |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Registration | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Allahabad High Court says order of cancellation did not mentioned any reason of cancellation and not satisfy test of Article 14 of constitution.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Makewell Pharma Gomti Nagar Lucknow vs. State of U.P |
| Date of Judgment : 16-10-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 207 OF 2023 |
| Judges : VIVEK CHAUDHARY AND MANISH KUMAR, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Anurag Mishra |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner was served a notice for the potential cancellation of their registration due to a failure to file returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the show-cause notice due to the COVID-19 outbreak, which prevented them from responding. Subsequently, an order was issued canceling the petitioner’s registration. This order stated that the authority had reviewed the petitioner’s reply and the arguments presented during the hearing, concluding that the registration should be canceled due to the lack of response. |
| Held by court : The decision to cancel the registration was made without any clear justification, indicating a lack of thoughtful consideration. As such, the order did not meet the standards of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and therefore should be overturned |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Cancellation or suspension of registration |
| Section of GST: section 29 of CGST Act,2017 |
