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 August 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of August 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 of Product | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Allahabad High Court says the matter of the assessee manufacturer and supplier of silver coated illaichi challenging the GST Council’s authority to change the classification of its product and enhance the GST rate was listed for consideration.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 21-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 979 OF 2023 |
| Judges : PRITINKER DIWAKER, CJ. AND ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Rahul Agarwal |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing, supplying, and distributing silver coated cardamom, argued that their products fell under Chapter 20 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and attracted a duty of 12%. Even after the migration to the GST regime, the petitioner’s products continued to be classified under Heading No. 2008. However, the GST Council, in its meeting on September 17, 2021, reclassified the products under Chapter 21 and imposed a GST of 18%. The petitioner argued that the GST Council does not have the authority to change the classification of a commodity or increase the GST rate payable under a clarification. |
| Held by court : The case was to be listed because the matter required consideration. |
| In favor of : Matter listed |
| Topic of GST : Classification of Products |
| Section of GST: Section 9 read with section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Transitional Provision | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Bombay High Court says the matter was adjourned for the revenue to consider the discriminatory approach of technical glitches in Maharashtra and Goa and file reply affidavits before the final hearing.
| High Court : Bombay High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Siemens Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 24-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 986 OF 2019 & OTHS. |
| Judges : JITENDRA JAIN AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Vikram Nankani, Sr. Adv. Jitendra Motwani, Chirag Shetty, Niraj Hande, Sameer Samal, Ms. Disha Shah, Rohan Shah, Udayan Choksi, Srisabarai Rajan, Mohammed Anajwala, V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Sriram Sridharan, Sanjeev Nair, Kumar Harshvardhan, Prakash Shah, Mihir Mehta and Mohit Rawal |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioners, who were registered input service distributors, were prevented from taking the benefit of input tax credit, which is permitted by law. This was anomalous because the law has a pan-India effect and the electronic portal is supposed to operate uniformly throughout the country. However, the issues arose only in Maharashtra and Goa. This discriminatory approach is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. |
| Held by court : The revenue should decide how to proceed with the case before the court hears the parties and decides the case on its merits, as ordered by the Supreme Court. The court has adjourned the case for further consideration. The revenue should take these factors into account and file its reply affidavits and any additional affidavits before the final hearing. |
| In favor of : Matter adjourned |
| Topic of GST : Transitional Provision |
| Section of GST: Section 140 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Input Tax Credit | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Madras High court says The writ petition was dismissed as the electronic credit ledger was automatically unblocked.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Krishna Impex vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 22-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 9721 OF 2021 W.M.P. NO.10322 OF 2021 |
| Judges : MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. |
| Counsel Name : Adithya Reddy |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the department to allow them to debit a sum from their electronic credit ledger. The revenue submitted that the ledger had already been automatically unblocked and, therefore, the writ petition was no longer necessary. |
| Held by court : Writ petition was to be closed |
| In favor of : Petition closed |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 17 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Arrest under GST | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Supreme Court says interim order restraining the arrest of the accused of ITC fraud was made absolute because he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
| High Court : Supreme Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Paresh Anubhai Mawani vs. Superintendent (Central Tax) |
| Date of Judgment : 25-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2602-2604 OF 2023 |
| Judges : ABHAY S. OKA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ashish Batra |
| Fact of the Case: The Supreme Court granted the petitioner, who was accused of fraudulently availing input tax credit, liberty from arrest on October 26, 2021. The department has not reported any misuse of this liberty |
| Held by court : The only grievance of the department was that the accused was not producing the relevant documents. The interim order dated October 26, 2021, was made absolute, subject to the directions contained in the earlier order dated July 17, 2023, which required the accused to produce the specific documents in his custody. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Arrest under GST |
| Section of GST: Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 69 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
GST Case law on Appeals to tribunal | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Orissa High court stayed the recovery of the rest of the demand during the pendency of the writ petition, subject to the petitioner depositing the entire tax demand.
| High Court : Orissa High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Neelachal Udyog vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), CT & GST Territorial Range, Bhubaneswar |
| Date of Judgment : 03-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P (C) NO.22098 OF 2023 AND I.A. NO.10509 OF 2023 |
| Judges : DR. B.R. SARANGI AND MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Kshirod Kumar Sahoo, |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee filed an appeal with the first appellate authority, but it was not admitted on the ground that it was in violation of subsections (1) and (4) of Section 107 of the GST Act. The assessee wanted to appeal to the second appellate tribunal, which had not yet been constituted, but the court stayed the recovery of the tax demand pending the constitution of the tribunal. |
| Held by court : Pending the disposal of the writ petition, the rest of the demand will remain stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing the entire tax demand. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeals to authority stays on recovery |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Detention of Goods & Conveyance | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Andhra Pradesh High Court says that the purchaser’s responsibility is limited to proving that they bona fide purchased goods from the seller for valuable consideration by verifying the GST registration on the official web portal
| High Court : Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Arhaan Ferrous And Non-Ferrous Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner-1(ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 03-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NOS. 15481, 15482, 15486 AND 15487 OF 2023 AUGUST 3, 2023 |
| Judges : U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : |
| Fact of the Case: The revenue authority initiated proceedings against the consignor (R-4) under Section 130 of the CGST Act, as the goods were detained in transit from Vijayawada to Telangana, and the consignor was absent from the given address and did not have any business premises in Vijayawada. |
| Held by court : The revenue authority could not confiscate the goods of the petitioner purchaser simply because the purchaser purchased the goods from R-4. The responsibility of the petitioner purchaser would be limited to establishing that they had bona fide purchased the goods from R-4 for valuable consideration by verifying the GST registration of R-4 on the official web portal. The purchaser was not required to be aware of the credentials of R-4. The purchaser had to establish the mode of payment of the consideration and the mode of receiving the goods through authenticated documents. However, the purchaser could not be expected to speak about the business activities of R-4 or whether they had obtained GST registration by producing fake documents. In view of this, the respondent authority was not correct in roping the petitioners into proceedings initiated against R-4 consignor without initiating independent proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST/APGST Act against the petitioners. The writ petitions were, accordingly, to be disposed of by giving liberty to the respondent authority to initiate proceedings against the petitioners under Section 129 |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Detention of Goods and Conveyance |
| Section of GST: Section 129, read with section 130 and 68 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 & Rule 138A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 |
GST Case law on Registration | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Allahabad High court says due to COVID-19, petitioner was unaware of the show cause notice and hence could not file a reply.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Surendra Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P |
| Date of Judgment : 23-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 172 OF 2023 |
| Judges : VIVEK CHAUDHARY AND MANISH KUMAR, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Rishi Kumar Tripathi and Utkarsh Singh |
| Fact of the Case: Due to the COVID-19 upsurge, the petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice and could not file a reply. As a result, the registration was cancelled. The petitioner could not file an appeal under the Act due to the COVID-19 situation and fell ill, for which medical certificates were issued. The petitioner filed a delay condonation application along with the appeal, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. |
| Held by court : The order cancelling the registration was without any reason and was passed without application of mind. It was arbitrary and unfair, and did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside and the petition is allowed. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 29, read with section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
GST Case law on Natural Justice | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Allahabad High court says Even if an assessee does not request for a personal hearing, the assessing authority must provide them with a minimal opportunity to be heard before passing an adverse order, especially if the order creates a significant civil liability.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : B.L. Pahariya Medical Store vs. State of U.P |
| Date of Judgment : 22-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 981 OF 2023 |
| Judges : PRITINKER DIWAKER, CJ.AND ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Aaditya Pandey |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the period July 2017 to March 2018, which raised a demand of more than Rs. 26 lakhs against the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard. |
| Held by court : A principle of law has been laid down that a person or assessee is not required to request for an opportunity of personal hearing. The assessing authority is mandated to provide such an opportunity before passing an adverse order. The fact that the petitioner may have indicated “No” in the relevant appeal form meant to indicate the assessee’s choice to avail personal hearing would not have any legal consequence. Even otherwise, in the context of an assessment order that creates a significant civil liability, a minimal opportunity of hearing must be granted in real terms. Only then can the explanation provided be rejected and a demand created. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Natural Justice |
| Section of GST: Section 75 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Notice | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Madras High Court held that the service of an order through the web portal under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act is sufficient.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Tvl. Alaghu Vivek vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner [ST] |
| Date of Judgment : 03-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NOS. 22375, 22377 OF 2023 & OTHS. W.M.P. NOS. 21761, 21767 OF 2023 & OTHS. |
| Judges : C. SARAVANAN, J. |
| Counsel Name : D. Vijayakumar |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee, who was aggrieved by the assessment orders, filed appeals. However, the appeals were rejected on the ground that they were filed beyond the limitation period. The assessee argued that the assessment orders had been served through the web portal, but this was not sufficient for the purpose of reckoning limitation. However, the record showed that the assessee had also received the assessment orders through RPAD in all cases except one. |
| Held by court : The question of whether service of an order through the web portal under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act is sufficient had to be decided only in that particular case. All other writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST Notice |
| Section of GST: section 169 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Demand| Recent GST Case laws 2023
Allahabad High court says the court cannot decide whether the company evaded taxes at this point
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Shree Mahaveer Export vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 02-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 930 OF 2023 |
| Judges : PRITINKER DIWAKER, CJ. AND ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Sahibe Alam |
| Fact of the Case: A company that exports cricket bats challenged a notice from the government saying they might have evaded taxes. The company said the notice did not have any proof of tax evasion by fraud or mistake. |
| Held by court : The company challenged the show cause notice, but the court said it couldn’t decide if the company had evaded taxes yet. The court said the company should file objections to the notice within 2 weeks, and the government would decide based on those objections. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand |
| Section of GST: Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Gujarat High court says the taxpayer was allowed to file a new application for reconsideration.
| High Court : Gujarat High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 10-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1345 OF 2021 |
| Judges : BIREN VAISHNAV AND DEVAN M. DESAI, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Bharat Raichandani, Anshul Jain and Aditya R. Parikh |
| Fact of the Case: After migrating to the GST regime in August 2017, the company paid taxes in the respective states where it was liable to do so. They also complied with all the requirements, including filing GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns. In some cases, the company paid excess tax in the state of Gujarat. After making good the short payment of tax through annual returns, the company applied for a refund of the excess tax. However, their applications for refund were rejected without any reason. |
| Held by court : The company was told to file a new application for a refund. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Search & Seizure | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Delhi High court says during search, proper officer cannot seize currency and other valuable assets
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Deepak Khandelwal vs. Commissioner of CGST |
| Date of Judgment : 17-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 6739 OF 2021 |
| Judges : VIBHU BAKHRU AND PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Rajesh Jain, Virag Tiwari and Ramashish |
| Fact of the Case: Movable assets found during a search, even if they are considered goods, cannot be seized. Only goods that are suspected of being used to evade taxes can be confiscated. Documents, books, and other items can be seized only if they are necessary for legal proceedings. Otherwise, they must be returned. |
| Held by court : The purpose of Section 67 of the GST Act is not to recover taxes. It is to help the authorities find and stop tax evasion. The proper officer can seize goods to ensure that taxes are paid. But once the department is satisfied that the taxes will be paid, either by paying the taxes or by providing a bond, the goods must be released. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Search & Seizure |
| Section of GST: Section 67, read with sections 2(52), 2(75) and 2(101) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
GST Case law on Bail | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Bombay High Court says prayer for interim relief of no further coercive action was to be rejected
| High Court : Bombay High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Turnon Systems vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 09-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 909 OF 2023 |
| Judges : G.S. KULKARNI AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Nikita Badheka and Parth Badheka |
| Fact of the Case: The government had frozen the company’s bank accounts because they thought the company had claimed fake input tax credit of 4.19 crores on purchases of 23.71 crores from 14 fake companies. However, the government had lifted the freeze on the company’s overdraft account so that the company could continue to operate its business. The company had admitted to the authorities that they had wrongly availed of the input tax credit and had agreed to reverse it. However, they had not done so even after a year. The company requested that the court prevent the government from taking any further action against them. |
| Held by court : The authorities were investigating the entities and people from whom the company had purchased goods. 14 of these parties were found to be fake. The amount of input tax credit and purchases made by the company was substantial and was under investigation by the authorities. A show cause notice would be issued after the investigation was complete. The company had offered to reverse the input tax credit availed on purchases from the 14 fake parties, but had not done so yet. The company had not made a prima facie case for the grant of any interim relief. Therefore, the prayer for interim relief of no further coercive action was to be rejected. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Bail |
| Section of GST: Section 132 , section 67 and Section 83 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Input Tax Credit | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Calcutta High Court say action against the supplier is essential before seeking reversal from the appellant.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Suncraft Energy (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 02-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : MAT NO. 1218 OF 2023 |
| Judges : T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ankit Kanodia, Ms. Megha Agarwal and Jitesh Sah |
| Fact of the Case: The revenue reversed the appellant’s input tax credit under the WBGST Act, alleging that the supplier’s invoices were not reflected in the appellant’s GSTR-2A for the fiscal year 2017-18. The appellant argued that they had complied with Section 16(2) of the Act by paying the supplier via a valid tax invoice. |
| Held by court : A press release dated 18 October 2018 clarified that GSTR-2A is for taxpayer facilitation and does not impact the availing of input tax credit. Reversal of credit from the buyer is optional, except in exceptional circumstances such as collusion, a missing supplier, or lack of assets. The appellant clarified that they had possession of the invoice and had made payment via bank statements. The revenue failed to inquire into the supplier despite these clarifications. The Arise India Limited vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi case established that denying credit due to a supplier’s default is unconstitutional. The show cause notice faulted the appellant’s GSTR-1, not their possession or receipt of the tax invoice. Therefore, action against the supplier is essential before seeking reversal from the appellant. The revenue’s action was deemed to be arbitrary. The impugned order was set aside, and the authorities were directed to follow CBIC guidelines. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2023 |
GST Case law on Appeals to appellate authority | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Bombay High Court says Commissioner (Appeal) could not reject appeal; he had to issue a defect memo to appellant pointing out procedural defect and would give him adequate opportunity for rectify
| High Court : Bombay High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : JEM Exporter vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 02-08-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION (L) NO.25142 OF 2022 |
| Judges : G.S. KULKARNI AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Bharat Raichandani and Prathamesh Gorgate, |
| Fact of the Case: The Commissioner (Appeal) rejected the appeal because it was defective. The appellant had not provided a challan or proof of having made a pre-deposit, nor had they filed a certified copy of the order-in-original. Additionally, the appeal was not signed by the proprietor and the signatory did not have an authority letter. |
| Held by court : The Commissioner (Appeal) should have issued a defect memo to the appellant, giving them an opportunity to produce proof and submit the required documents. The Commissioner should have also given the appellant adequate time to rectify the procedural defects. The Commissioner’s failure to do so was not justified, as it denied the appellant justice. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeals to appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 107 and section 29 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article