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 June 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of June 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 Rectification of Mistake | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Madras High Court has dismissed petition due to non co operation on the side of assessee
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Seoyon E-Hwa Summit Automotive India (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST)-I |
| Date of Judgment : 06-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NOS. 16535 & 16538 OF 2023 W.M.P. NOS. 15842, 15843 & 15845 OF 2023 |
| Judges : DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J. |
| Counsel Name : Sri Prakash and P.V. Sudakar |
| Fact of the Case: Despite being issued various notices, including ASMT 10, GST DRC-01A, and a show cause notice regarding the claim of Input Tax Credit, the assessee failed to provide any response. As a result, the assessment order was finalized based on the existing evidence. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application under Section 161 of the Act to rectify alleged errors on record. However, this application was rejected on the grounds that the assessee had already been given ample opportunities to present their case. |
| Held by court : Due to the lack of cooperation from the assessee during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer was compelled to finalize the assessment based solely on the available evidence, without any explanations provided by the assessee to their advantage. As the assessee made no genuine effort to cooperate or assist in the assessment proceedings, they cannot shift the blame onto the revenue department. Consequently, the petition is to be dismissed. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Rectification of Mistake |
| Section of GST: Section 161 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Demand & Recovery | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Jharkhand High Court says Assessee is not liable to pay any interest , tax and penalty
| High Court : Jharkhand High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Shree Ram Agrotech vs. State of Jharkhand |
| Date of Judgment : 15-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (T) NO. 163 OF 2023 |
| Judges : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY AND DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Rahul Lamba |
| Fact of the Case: Before the assessment order can be considered, it is necessary to mention that the period in question is from July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner received a recovery notice, which was issued based on an alleged summary order derived from DRC-07. However, the petitioner was not provided with a show cause notice or a detailed adjudication order as required by Section 73 of the JGST Act. Despite the assessee’s appeal, the appellate authority dismissed it. Subsequently, the matter was brought before the court through a writ |
| Held by court : The respondent department failed to pass a detailed adjudication order as mandated by Section 73(9) of the JGST Act, 2017. It is evident that no such adjudication order can be found in the records of the Revenue. It is firmly established that the mere existence of Form DRC-07 cannot impose any tax, interest, or penalty liability on the assessee. Given that no detailed adjudication order was issued as required under Section 73(9), the petitioner cannot be held accountable for any tax, interest, or penalty solely based on the aforementioned Form DRC-07. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand & recovery |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Scrutiny of Returns | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Andhra Pradesh High court says scrutiny of returns is not important condition for demand the tax u/s 74.
| High Court : Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Devi Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh |
| Date of Judgment : 19-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 3659 OF 2023 |
| Judges : U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND SMT. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : B. Abhay Siddanth Mootha |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner argued that before invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act, the proper officer should first conduct scrutiny of returns. In case any discrepancies are identified, a notice should be issued, and if a satisfactory explanation is not provided, action can then be taken under Section 74. On the other hand, the department maintained that the proper officer has the authority to directly invoke Section 74 without recourse to scrutiny under Section 61. The petitioner is accused of erroneously transferring input tax credit without the actual supply of goods. |
| Held by court : The absence of a reference to Section 61 indicates that Sections 73 and 74 are not governed by it. Section 74, using the phrase “where it appears,” provides a broad scope for action, as the information can come from any credible source. The proper officer is empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 74 based on actions taken under Section 61, such as scrutiny of returns, or under Section 65, such as audit, or any other relevant factor. The argument against initiating proceedings through a show cause notice under Section 74 without prior scrutiny of returns under Section 61 should be dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition is to be dismissed. The petitioner’s failure to submit objections or a reply to the notice prevents the provisional attachment from being deemed unlawful. However, considering that the show cause notice was received after the expiration of the granted reply period, the petitioner should be instructed to submit an explanation. Furthermore, the Adjudicating Authority should be directed to evaluate the reply and issue an order after allowing an opportunity for a personal hearing. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Scrutiny of returns and Provisional attachment |
| Section of GST: Section 61 , Section 74, Section 83 of CGST Act 2013 |
GST Case law on Provisional attachment | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Gujarat High Court says Petition challenging order of Provisional attachment was not entertained
| High Court : Gujarat High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Royal Corporation vs. State of Gujarat |
| Date of Judgment : 06-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13711 OF 2022 |
| Judges : ASHUTOSH SHASTRI AND J. C. DOSHI, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Premal R. Joshi |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee responded to the summons under Section 70 from the authorities, providing the necessary details pertaining to the claim of Input Tax Credit. Based on these replies, proceedings were initiated, and it was determined that there was a wrongful claim of input tax credit, resulting in a tax liability of a certain amount. To protect the interests of revenue, the bank accounts of the assessee were provisionally attached under Section 83. In response, an immediate writ petition was filed, contesting the order of provisional attachment on the grounds of a violation of the principles of natural justice. |
| Held by court : After thoroughly examining the materials and information submitted by the assessee, the authority arrived at a specific conclusion, satisfying itself that the action taken was necessary in the interest of revenue. Considering that the decision was made based on the received material and information, it cannot be deemed as either irrational or contrary to the law, especially since the proceedings had already been initiated. When weighing substantial justice against technical considerations, priority was given to substantial justice. Consequently, since the authority was acting in the interest of revenue and a show cause notice had already been issued, the petition challenging the order of attachment was not entertained. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Provisional attachment |
| Section of GST: Section 83 and Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Works contract service | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Gauhati High court direct to demand records to verify reason to believe existed or not
| High Court : Gauhati High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Marjit Basumatary vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 07-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 2620 OF 2023 |
| Judges : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. |
| Counsel Name : A.M. Baruah |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the show cause notice, asserting that the correct turnover in GSTR-3B for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 had been duly declared and that the tax on machinery rental income and royalty paid to the forest department had been duly paid. The petitioner argued that they were entitled to receive copies of the requested documents, whereas the department disputed this claim. |
| Held by court : The demand for GST was not solely based on the mining lease and/or royalty paid to the State Government, which was already under consideration by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The demand also encompassed other claims. Prior to the issuance of the notice, this Court was inclined to review the records pertaining to the show cause notice in order to ascertain whether there were valid “reasons to believe” or if it was merely a pretense. The department was to be directed to present the records related to the show cause notice for the examination of this Court. However, the petitioner was not entitled to receive a copy of the same. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Works Contract Service |
| Section of GST: Section 74 of CGST Act 2017 |
GST Case law on Writ Jurisdiction | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Kerala High Court says department was empowered to pass order
| High Court : Kerala High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : S. R. Traders vs. Additional Director General |
| Date of Judgment : 09-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2023 |
| Judges : C.S. DIAS, J. |
| Counsel Name : Aswin Gopakumar, Jikku Seban George, Deepti Susan George, Aditya Venugopalan, Nikitha Susan Paulson, Mahesh Chandran, Avinash Kurungot, Gautham Krishna E.J. and Shallet K. Sam |
| Fact of the Case: The Department Provisionally attached bank account due to fake purchase and ITC claimed based on the Fake documents |
| Held by court : The documents submitted by the department revealed that the petitioner had engaged in fraudulent activities, warranting the invocation of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, in order to safeguard government revenue. Although a statutory remedy was available under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which allowed for a request to be made to the Commissioner to lift the attachment, this remedy had not been pursued, as the writ petition was filed instead. Writ jurisdiction can only be invoked in exceptional circumstances when alternative remedies are not available. Given that the department was authorized to issue an order by virtue of the delegated powers under Sections 3 and 5 of the CGST Act, 2017, the writ petition was dismissed. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Writ Jurisdiction |
| Section of GST: Section 83 of CGST Actg,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Jharkhand High Court direct to refund the claim with interest of 6%
| High Court : Jharkhand High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand |
| Date of Judgment : 12-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (T) NO. 3983 OF 2022 |
| Judges : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY AND DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sumeet Gadodia, Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Ranjeet Kushwaha and Aakansha Mittal, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner sought a refund of unutilized input tax credit of compensation cess due to exports, and the refund was approved. However, the payment advice was not issued, citing technical difficulties. After a lapse of 30 months, the petitioner was informed that an order rejecting the refund had been passed, but the copy of the order was not provided to the petitioner. In an earlier round of proceedings, the High Court had directed the department to make a decision, and the petitioner was instructed to debit the amount from the electronic credit ledger. In the current round of proceedings, the department acknowledged that the disputed order was not available in their records but insisted that the petitioner file a fresh refund claim. |
| Held by court : The department failed to present the disputed order, and even if such an order was issued, it was done so without granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. If directed to file a refund claim again, the petitioner would suffer a loss of interest. The rejection of the refund application was done unlawfully, contrary to the provisions of the statute, by the Authority. As a result, the petitioner was entitled to interest under Section 54 of the CGST Act, at a rate of 6 percent per annum, from the expiry of 60 days from the receipt of the refund application until the date of payment of the refundable amount. The respondent was instructed to process the refund claim, along with the applicable interest, within a span of three weeks. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST case law on Search & Seizure proceedings against assessee operating in SEZ unit
Gujarat High court says GST authorities have power to conduct search and seizure in SEZ units.
| High Court : Gujarat High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : RHC Global Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 06-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 5978 TO 5980 OF 2023 |
| Judges : ASHUTOSH SHASTRI AND J. C. DOSHI, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : |
| Counsel Name : Saurabh N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. Abhishek Kumar C. Malvi and Maulik Vakhariya |
| Fact of the Case: The main point of dispute raised by the petitioners is that their business premises, located within a Special Economic Zone, should be considered as foreign territory. Consequently, the petitioners argue that the State GST authorities do not have the jurisdiction to conduct any search proceedings at their premises. |
| Held by court : The provisions of the IGST Act, 2017 apply to the entirety of India, and it is not in dispute that the petitioner is registered under the said act. If the argument put forth by the petitioners, asserting that they are SEZ units and therefore exempt from investigation or inspection, is accepted, it would undermine the purpose of the Act. Furthermore, there are no apparent inconsistencies between the SEZ Act 2005 and the GST Act 2017. It is an undisputed fact that the Development Commissioner of the SEZ was duly informed prior to the initiation of search and seizure proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act. Given these circumstances, the submission made by the petitioners does not seem worthy of acceptance. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Search and Seizure Operation in SEZ unit |
| Section of GST: Section 67 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Place of supply | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Bombay High Court says Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of IGST Act can not made applicable for levy of tax on services under CGST and MGST Acts.
| High Court : Bombay High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Dharmendra M. Jani vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 06-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 639 OF 2020 |
| Judges : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Bharat Raichandani, Rishabh Jain, Abhishek Rastogi, Pratyushprawa Saha, Mahir Chablani, Ms. Kanika Sharma and Marmik Kamdar |
| Fact of the Case: In the case of Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India, there was a difference of opinion regarding the constitutionality of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act. One member of the Division Bench, Ujjal Bhutan, held that Section 13(8)(b) is ultra vires and unconstitutional, while the other member, Abhay Ahuja J., disagreed and held that the said sections are constitutionally valid. Due to this difference in opinion, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for further consideration. The Chief Justice then referred the matter to a third judge, G.S. Kulkarni, for their opinion. In the subsequent judgment by Judge G.S. Kulkarni, it was held that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid, and constitutional. However, it was clarified that these provisions are limited to the operation of the IGST Act only and cannot be applied for the levy of tax on services under the CGST and MGST Acts. |
| Held by court : Court held that view taken by Justice G,.S.Kulkarni, and Abhay Ahuja J. provisions of 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of IGST Act are legal, valid and constitutional. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Place of supply |
| Section of GST: Section 13 and section 8 of IGST Act,2017 |
GST Case laws on Input Tax Credit | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Calcutta High Court says the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for input tax credit should be overturned.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Gargo Traders vs. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (State Tax) |
| Date of Judgment : 12-06-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.A. 1009 OF 2022 |
| Judges : KRISHNA RAO, J. |
| Counsel Name : Jagriti Mishra, Subham Gupta, Ms. Mrinmoyee Das and Reshab Kumar |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner’s credit claim for input tax against a supply made by a supplier was denied by the revenue authority. The reason for the rejection was that the supplier, from whom the petitioner claimed to have purchased goods, was proven to be fake and non-existent. Additionally, the bank accounts associated with the said supplier were opened using forged documents. The petitioner failed to verify the authenticity and identity of the supplier. |
| Held by court : At the time of the transaction, the name of the supplier, registered as a taxable person, was already available in government records. Furthermore, the petitioner had made payments for the purchased articles, including the applicable tax, through a bank transaction rather than in cash. Without conducting proper verification, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner failed to comply with any statutory obligations before entering into the transactions. Therefore, the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for input tax credit (ITC) should be overturned, and the revenue authority is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s concerns by duly considering the supporting documents that the petitioner intends to rely upon in support of their claim. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read Similar article
