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 July 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of July 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
Subway gets a clean chit from CCI on anti-profiteering charges
| COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA |
| Name of case : Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs vs. Subway Systems India (P.) Ltd. |
| Date of Judgment : 31-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : CASE NO. 08 OF 2023 |
| DR. SANGEETA VERMA AND BHAGWANT SINGH BISHNOI, MEMBER |
| Fact of the Case: The respondent, under a franchise agreement, provided its business model to various operators and only collected royalties and advertising fees from franchisees for selling Subway’s proprietary products, based on the net sales declared by individual franchisees. The respondent had no involvement in the individual products sold to customers. The respondent had no control over the base price offered by franchisees to customers or the amount of input tax credit claimed by franchisees. The respondent did not set prices, supply materials, or retain input tax credit. Additionally, the respondent did not restrict its franchisees from offering discounts to customers in accordance with section 171 of the CGST Act. Additionally, the consideration for the sale of products was not received by the respondent and was retained by the individual franchisees, who recorded it as revenue in their individual accounting books. Additionally, the GST rate for royalty services has been 12% since the implementation of GST, and the GST rate for advertising fees has been 5% for print media and 18% for other media. There have been no reductions in tax rates for these services. |
| Held : The anti-profiteering proceedings against the respondent were to be dropped because the case did not fall under the ambit of the anti-profiteering provisions of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. There had been no reduction in the rate of tax for the services provided by the respondent, and the respondent did not supply any products to customers. |
| In favor of : assessee |
| Topic of GST : Anti Profiteering |
| Section of GST: Section 171 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Financial related service | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Calcutta High Court says loan transaction would not be exigible to GST
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Ramesh Kumar Patodia vs. City Bank N.A |
| Date of Judgment : 25-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : A.P.O. NO. 10 OF 2023 W.P.O. NO. 547 OF 2019 |
| Judges : I.P. MUKERJI AND BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ramesh Kumar Patodia |
| Fact of the Case: .A bank in Tamil Nadu declared a credit card holder in West Bengal eligible to receive a loan. The loan amount was advanced to the cardholder by a cheque issued by the bank, and therefore, the loan amount was not generated by charging the cardholder’s credit card. |
| Held by court : Although the monthly statement issued in relation to the use of the card showed the loan amount and indicated the equated monthly installment payable, it was only a statement of account. The loan transaction had to be considered as an entirely separate transaction. The relationship in such a loan transaction is different from the relationship between the appellant and the bank arising out of the issue, holding, or operation of the credit card. The appellant’s loan transaction with the bank was a service that could not be considered a credit card service and was not subject to integrated goods and services tax under Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate). |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Loan to Credit Card Holder , Financial related services |
| Section of GST: Section 15 of CGST Act,2017 & Section 5 of IGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Registration | Recent GST case laws 2023
Delhi High Court says assessee had sufficiently explained delay of 14 days in filling appeal
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Kritika Agarwal vs.Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 18-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 9424 OF 2023 CM NOS. 36000 & 36001 OF 2023 |
| Judges : VIBHU BAKHRU AND AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Deepak Kumar Sharma and Rajnish Verma |
| Fact of the Case: The order cancelling the GST registration of the assessee was passed solely on the directions of another authority, which alleged that the assessee had failed to respond to a summons issued under Section 70 of the GST Act. However, the assessee’s accountant had visited the office and had requested an adjournment to prepare the documents. The assessee filed an appeal 14 days late, but explained that the delay was due to the fact that she was in the process of providing documents to the Anti-Evasion Branch for verification. The assessee also sent a letter requesting that the cancellation of her GST registration be revoked. |
| Held by court : It is a well-established principle of law that an authority that is vested with the power to take a decision must exercise that power independently and cannot do so on the mere directions of another authority. In the present case, the order-in-original was passed solely on the directions of another authority, without considering the assessee’s reply to the show cause notice. As such, the impugned order-in-original cannot be sustained. The appellate authority had the discretion to condone a delay of up to one month in filing an appeal. In this case, the assessee was in the process of resolving the matter with the department regarding the cancellation of their GST registration, and they had adequately explained the 14-day delay. Given the far-reaching consequences of cancelling a GST registration, the appellate authority should have condoned the delay. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Registration and Appeal to appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 29 of CGST Act,2017 & Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Bombay High Court says the order rejecting the application was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
| High Court : Bombay High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Wallem Shipmanagement (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 11-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 3460 OF 2021 |
| Judges : G.S. KULKARNI AND JITENDRA JIAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Bharat Raichandani and Prathamesh Gargale |
| Fact of the Case: The authority issued a notice to the applicant, who requested for an extension of time to reply. The authority rejected the application, citing that the applicant did not reply to the notice despite being given an opportunity to do so. |
| Held by court : The authority issued a notice to the applicant, who was unable to reply in a timely manner due to disruptions caused by a pandemic. The authority should have given the applicant more time to reply, as the three days that were initially given were not reasonable. The order rejecting the application should be set aside because it violated the principle of natural justice. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST case law on Recovery of Transitional Credit | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Jharkhand High Court says petitioner is not eligible to claim ITC for period prior to NCLT approval of resolution plan
| High Court : Jharkhand High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : ESL Steel Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 11-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(T) NO. 1995 OF 2023 |
| Judges : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY AND DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Biren Poddar, Sr. Adv. and Piyush Poddar |
| Fact of the Case: After the resolution plan was approved, the petitioner revised its tax return and sought to claim input tax credit on capital goods that had not been claimed earlier. The revenue issued a notice to the petitioner on the grounds that the credit had been claimed irregularly. The petitioner argued that no recovery or proceedings could be continued against it for any debts that were incurred before the resolution plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). |
| Held by court : The adjudicating authority correctly held that the liability of the earlier management cannot be shifted to the current management. However, the authority erred in holding that the entire amount of transitional credit taken by the current management is liable to be recovered along with interest and penalties. The confirmation of demand under Section 74(9) is quashed and set aside. The current management cannot claim credit for input tax credit (ITC) for the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). |
| In favor of : Partly favorable |
| Topic of GST : Recovery of Transitional Credit |
| Section of GST: Sections 74(9) and 140(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund of IGST | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Gujarat High Court says tax deposited under mistake could not be denied to be refunded
| High Court : Gujarat High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Tagros Chemicals India (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 13-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 647 OF 2022 |
| Judges : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI AND DEVAN M. DESAI, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Dhaval Shah |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee received an order from a registered exporter to supply goods at a concessional rate of IGST of 0.1%. However, the assessee mistakenly supplied the goods at the full rate of IGST of 18%. The assessee filed a refund claim in March 2020, but the respondent authority rejected the claim because the assessee did not submit all of the required documentation. Specifically, the assessee did not submit a copy of the purchase order from the registered exporter to the jurisdictional tax officer and the registered supplier. However, the assessee did submit a letter from the registered exporter to the jurisdictional tax officer and the registered supplier, which stated that the exporter had placed an order with the assessee and had purchased goods from the assessee. |
| Held by court : The assessee raised a tax invoice on June 30, 2019, and the buyer-exporter exported the goods on July 6, 2019. This fulfilled the condition that the registered recipient must export the goods within 90 days of the date of issue of the tax invoice by the registered supplier. However, the respondent authority rejected the refund claim on a technical ground. The revenue authority should refund the amount along with interest |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund of IGST |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 & section 5 of IGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Appeal to Tribunal | Recent GST Case laws 2023
High Court says assessee must be extended statutory benefit of stay
| High Court : Patana high court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Metal Management vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 10-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 9464 OF 2023 |
| Judges : K. VINOD CHANDRAN, CJ. AND PARTHA SARTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : Mohit Agarwal, Adv. Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG and Anshuman Singh |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee wished to appeal the order in the Tribunal, but because the Tribunal had not been constituted, they were denied their statutory remedy. They were also prevented from availing the benefit of staying the recovery of the remaining tax amount. However, subject to depositing 20% of the remaining disputed tax amount, in addition to the amount already deposited under Section 107 of the BGST Act, the assessee must be granted the statutory benefit of staying the recovery. |
| Held by court : The assessee must file an appeal under Section 112 of the BGST Act once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional. Otherwise, the respondent authorities will be free to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeals to Tribunal |
| Section of GST: Section 112 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Demand & Recovery | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Kerala High court says writ petition was to be dismissed there being wilful negligence on part of assessee
| High Court : Kerala High court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Marvel Associates vs. State Tax officer |
| Date of Judgment : 10-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : WP(C) NO. 20038 OF 2023 |
| Judges : C.S. DIAS, J. |
| Counsel Name : Aji V. Dev, S. Sajeevan and Alan Priyadarshi Dev |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee filed its returns and discharged its tax liability. However, it was served with a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 indicating an error in its returns and consequential notices in the GST portal. The first respondent passed an order under Section 73 on the ground that the assessee had availed excess ITC in GSTR-3B when compared to GSTR-2A, in contravention of the provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. The assessee submitted that it had not claimed or availed excess ITC and was entitled to eligible credits under the IGST Act. However, due to inadvertence while filing Form GSTR-3B, the error occurred. Nonetheless, to avoid litigation and to purchase peace, the petitioner submitted GST Form B and reversed the proportionate amount. As per the reconciliation done by the assessee, the excess ITC had been reversed. Meanwhile, the second respondent issued a revenue recovery notice. The High Court held that the revenue recovery notice was invalid as the excess ITC had been reversed. |
| Held by court : The assessee’s failure to submit a timely response to the ASMT 10 form, indicating an alleged error in the return, and its subsequent failure to challenge the impugned orders in appeal, constituted willful negligence. As a result, the assessee’s writ petition, which was filed after a year without first pursuing the available statutory remedies, could not be entertained. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Demand & recovery |
| Section of GST: Section 73, read with sections 39 and 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
GST Case law on E-Way Bill in case of Bill to Ship to Model | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Supreme court held that demand of GST and penalty not sustainable in case e way bill generated for Bill to Ship to model.
| High Court : Supreme Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Additional Commissioner Grade-2 vs. Sleevco Traders |
| Date of Judgment : 05-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 20769 OF 2023 |
| Judges : S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Bhakti Vardhan Singh |
| Fact of the Case: The High Court held that the demand of GST and imposition of penalty on the assessee was not sustainable. The E-Way Bill had been generated by the seller in a bill-to-ship-to model, which mentioned the place of delivery of the ultimate buyer in addition to the consignee assessee. There was no discrepancy between the goods mentioned in the invoice and the E-Way Bill. The Court also held that the authorities should not have dragged the assessee into litigation in the absence of any intention to evade GST, as all statutory documents were accompanying the goods. The Court imposed costs on the State, which were payable to the assessee. |
| Held by court : The impugned judgment was upheld as it was found to be sound and without any flaws. The special leave petition (SLP) filed by the State was dismissed. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand & Penalty in case of E way bill |
| Section of GST: Section 129 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Transitional Credit | Recent GST Case laws 2023
High Court says petitioner can not claim credit of ITC before NCLT approval of resolution plan
| High Court : Jharkhand High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : ESL Steel Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 11-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(T) NO. 1995 OF 2023 |
| Judges : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY AND DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Biren Poddar, and Piyush Poddar |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner availed input tax credit on capital goods after the resolution plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The revenue issued a notice to the petitioner on the grounds that the transitional credit was availed irregularly. The petitioner argued that no recovery or proceedings can be continued against it for any dues prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT. |
| Held by court : The adjudicating authority held that the liability of the earlier management should not be shifted to the current management. However, it also held that the entire amount taken as transitional credit is liable to be recovered along with applicable interest and penalties. This was a misdirected decision, as the petitioner cannot claim credit for ITC before the NCLT approval of the resolution plan. The confirmation of demand under section 74(9) is quashed and set aside. |
| In favor of : Partly in favour of assessee |
| Topic of GST : Transitional Credit recovery |
| Section of GST: Section 74(9) and 140(1) of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Appeal to Appellate Tribunal | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Bombay High Court states that appeal can be made within 3 Months from the date of communication of order.
| High Court : Bombay High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Essar Steel Suppliers vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 03-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 2301 OF 2022 |
| Judges : G.S. KULKARNI AND JITENDRA S. JAIN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Abhishek Rastogi and Sushant Valimbe |
| Fact of the Case: Section 112 allows for an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), but the Appellate Tribunal was not yet in place |
| Held by court : The deadline for filing an appeal to the tribunal is three months from the later of the two dates: the date the order is communicated, or the date the President or State President of the Appellate Tribunal enters office. |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to Appellate Tribunal |
| Section of GST: Section 112 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Anticipatory Bail | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Madhya Pradesh High Court says No case was made for granting anticipatory Bail
| High Court : Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Mohit Jain vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 04-07-2023 |
| Appeal No : MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26215 OF 2023 |
| Judges : VIVEK RUSIA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ravindra Singh, and Mudit Maheshwari |
| Fact of the Case: The applicant was previously granted bail on the basis of a compromise. However, the applicant did not appear before the GST Investigation Wing, even though they were served with three summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Statements from various people indicate that the applicant was the main accused in these GST refunds, which were obtained by creating fake firms. |
| Held by court : The investigation into the GST-RI and GST-3B sales and purchases of as many as 25 bogus firms is still ongoing, and given the severity of the offense and the large amount of GST refunds that were obtained through these bogus firms, there is no basis for granting anticipatory bail. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Anticipatory Bail |
| Section of GST: Section 132 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article