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 March 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of March 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 Principal of Natural Justice| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Madras High Court says there is violation of Principal of Natural Justice with any reason given by revenue
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Shree Shyam Granites and Marbles VS Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Hosur (South) III Circle |
| Date of Judgment : 13-02-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.NOS. 4105, 4108 AND 4110 OF 2023 W.M.P. NOS. 4164, 4168 AND 4169 OF 2023 |
| Judges : ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. |
| Counsel Name : Adithya Reddy |
| Fact of the Case: The respondent did not provide any explanations for dismissing the objections raised by the petitioner in their replies. Furthermore, the petitioner was given a chance to be heard even before receiving the replies from the respondent.. |
| Held by court : Personal hearing should only be granted after receiving a reply from the petitioner, and only when the respondent anticipates an unfavorable decision against the petitioner. Moreover, personal hearing should only be granted when the reply is duly acknowledged in the impugned orders. In this case, non-speaking orders were passed and the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the impugned assessment orders were quashed and the matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits. The respondent was directed to pass final orders after adhering to the principles of natural justice and affording personal hearing to the petitioner. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Principal of Natural Justice |
| Section of GST: Section 75 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Reverse charge mechanism| Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Rajasthan High Court Says RCM will applicable on royalty paid to Government on Mining Lease services
| High Court: Rajasthan high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Chak vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment :29-09-2022 |
| Appeal No : D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5678 OF 2022 AND OTHS. |
| Judges : KULDEEP MATHUR AND SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sharad Kothari, Lokesh Mathur, Sheetal Kumbhat, Arvind Shrimali, Amit Vyas, D.D. Chittlangi, Achala Ram, Lalit Pareek, Saurabh Maheshwari, Tarun Dudia, Vinay Kothari, Devendra Singh Chauhan, V.K. Agarwal and Rahul Lakhwani |
| Fact of the Case: The issue pertains to the taxability of royalty paid by the petitioner-assessees to the Government on Mining Lease services under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The issue has already been settled against the assessees in a co-ordinate Bench’s decision in Sudershan Lal Gupta Contractor v. Union of India [2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 4 (Raj.)]. The co-ordinate Bench relied on several other decisions of co-ordinate Benches and held that the royalty paid by a lease holder to the Government on Mining Lease services is taxable under RCM. |
| Held by court : The writ petitions filed by the assessees on the issue were dismissed, but their statutory right to contest the show cause notice or to file an appeal against the adjudication orders was not affected. However, the hearing for the writ petitions pertaining to the demand of GST on contributions made to the District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT) was postponed. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : RCM |
| Section of GST : Section 9 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Procedural Lapse in Filling of Appeal| Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Madras High Court says that non submission of certified copy of the order will be treated as mere technical defect when statutory appeal was filed electronically on time, which is acceptable.
| High Court: Madras high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : PKV Agencies VS Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) |
| Date of Judgment : 06-02-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NOS. 17522 & 17523 OF 2020 |
| Judges : ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. |
| Counsel Name : Hari Radhakrishnan |
| Fact of the Case: The appellant filed a statutory appeal on time under section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. However, the appellant failed to submit a certified copy of the order within seven days as required by Rule 108(3) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. The requirement to submit a certified copy of the impugned order within seven days of filing the appeal is only a procedural requirement, and such a technical defect can be condoned by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. |
| Held by court : The respondent was required to handle the appeal and accept the certified copy of the impugned order that the petitioner had supplied. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Concept of GST : Appeal to Appellate Authority |
| Section of GST : Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Delay in filling Writ Petition |Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Madras High Court direct petitioner to deposit 50% amount demanded under assessment order with in period of 4 weeks
| High Court: Madras high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : A. Palanisamy VS Deputy State Tax Officer (Circle) |
| Date of Judgment : 10-02-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO.3921 OF 2023 W.M.P. NO. 3987 OF 2023 |
| Judges : ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. |
| Counsel Name : R. Senniappan |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner had raised certain contentions in the writ petition, which were not taken into account in the impugned assessment order. However, the petitioner did not file any statutory appeal against the order. The writ petition was filed after a delay of over thirteen months. Therefore, even if the respondent had violated the principles of natural justice and the impugned assessment order was non-speaking with respect to the petitioner’s contentions, the petitioner should be held accountable for the delay in approaching the court. |
| Held by court : High Court ordered petitioner to deposit 50% of sum requested under impugned assessment decision within four weeks. On deposit of aforesaid amount by petitioner, impugned assessment order stands annulled and was remitted back to respondent for fresh consideration on merits. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Writ Petition |
| Section of GST : Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund related Export |Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Karnataka High Court Says that Rule 89(4)(C) of CGST Rules, 2017 is ultravires and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of Constitution of India
| High Court: Karnataka high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case :Tonbo Imaging India (P.) Ltd. vs.Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 16-02-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 13185 OF 2020 (T-RES) |
| Judges : S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J. |
| Counsel Name : V. Raghuraman and C.R. Raghavendra |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, an assessee, was involved in designing, developing, building, and deploying advanced imaging and sensor systems for sensing, understanding, and controlling complex environments. During the period from May 2018 to March 2019, the petitioner exported various customized and unique products that were “zero-rated” under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017. As a result, they claimed a refund of unutilized input tax credit under Section 54(3)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. However, Rule 89(4C) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was amended w.e.f 23.03.2020, due to which show-cause notices were issued by the respondents-department on the grounds that the petitioner had not provided the required proof as per the amended Rule 89(4C) of CGST Rules, and therefore, the refund claims could not be considered. The present petition challenges the validity of Rule 89(4C) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as amended by Para 8 of Notification No.16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020, which required the petitioner to submit proof that the export turnover mentioned in the claim was 1.5 times the value of like goods domestically supplied by the same or similarly placed supplier. |
| Held by court : For a business to thrive, the availability of rotation of funds was essential. If the respondents-department were allowed to impose limitations and conditions that would take away the petitioner-assessee’s right to claim refund of all taxes paid on domestic purchases used for the purpose of zero-rated supplies, the entire concept of refund of unutilized input tax credit relating to zero-rated supply would be obliterated. Moreover, Rule 89(4C) is arbitrary and unreasonable because the possibility of taking undue benefit by inflating the value of zero-rated supply of goods cannot be a ground to amend the rule. Therefore, Rule 89(4C) as amended vide Para 8 of Notification No.16/2020-Central Tax(F.No.CBEC-20/06/04/2020-GST) dated 23.03.2020 was declared ultra vires with regard to provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as also violative of Articles 14 and 19 of Constitution of India. Consequently, the rule was quashed. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Concept of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST : Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Cancellation of Registration| Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Allahabad HC says that Show cause notice issued by authorities for rejection of application of revocation of cancellation of registration was reckless and vague
| High Court: Allahabad high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Viraj Polymers (P.) Ltd. Vs State of U.P. |
| Date of Judgment : 16-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 300 OF 2022 |
| Judges :PANKAJ BHATIA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Naveen Chandra Gupta & Manish Gupta |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner’s registration was cancelled because during a survey, the petitioner’s business was not found at the registered business place. The petitioner filed an application for revocation of the cancellation, but it was rejected on the same grounds. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice stating that the business was being carried out as evidenced by the petitioner’s filed income tax return, and therefore, there was no basis for the cancellation of registration. |
| Held by court : The notice issued by the authorities to reject the application for revocation of registration was careless and ambiguous. The order passed by the revenue officer rejecting the revocation application was a careless use of power, which resulted in the denial of the rights of freedom and business guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Thus, the said order should be nullified, and the respondent must be instructed to pass a new order after hearing the petitioner and taking into consideration the ITR returns filed by them. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST : Section 29 of the CGST Act,2017 |
Latest GST case laws PDF
GST Case law on Expiry of E-way Bill| Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
latest gst judgements| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Calcutta HC says it is fault when there is transportation of goods without having valid e-way bill.
| High Court: Calcutta high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Abinash Kumar Singh |
| Date of Judgment : 03-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : WPA 3374 of 2022 |
| Judges : Amrita Sinha, J |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Sweta Mukherjee, Mr. Debajit Kundu |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner argued that the penalty was imposed for transporting goods with an expired e-way bill, but the delay was caused by deliberate waiting of the vehicle at the check post and failure to issue a gate pass on time. |
| Held by court : The delay in issuing the gate pass resulted in the delay in transportation, and there is a provision for extending the validity period after uploading the details on the portal. However, the detention of goods without valid documents is permissible by law, and there is no room to dilute this provision to provide relief to an errant transporter. The authority is not required to consider the reasons for the movement of a vehicle without a valid e-way bill. Although the petitioner may or may not be directly responsible for the delay in issuing the gate pass, they are at fault for transporting the goods without an e-way bill. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : Detention & Expiry of E-way Bill |
| Section of GST : Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act |
PDF of latest GST case laws
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Delhi HC orders to refund the ITC on goods exported including cess
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : M/S BALAJI EXIM VS COMMISSIONER, CGST AND ORS |
| Date of Judgment : 10-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) 10423/2022 |
| Judges : MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Abhas Mishra, Ms. Aakriti P. Mishra and Mr. Shyam Bhageria, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner submitted two refund applications, one dated 11.09.2020 in Form GST-RFD-01 for claiming unutilized Input Tax Credit and the other dated 12.09.2020 in Form GST-RFD-01 for claiming refund of goods exported by the petitioner.Respondent no.2 issued an acknowledgement in Form GST-RFD-02 dated 27.09.2020 for the petitioner’s refund application dated 12.09.2020. However, for the first application dated 11.09.2020, respondent no.2 issued a deficiency memo dated 21.09.2020 stating that supporting documents were not uploaded on the GST portal. As a result, the petitioner filed another application on 23.09.2020 with all necessary documents, which was acknowledged by the respondent on 01.10.2020.The petitioner’s refund applications were not handled because it was claimed that the supplier from whom the petitioner had bought the goods had received counterfeit invoices from their suppliers. |
| Held by court : The petitioner’s argument that they are not obligated to scrutinize their suppliers’ affairs holds weight. The accusations of M/s Shruti Exports allegedly availing fake credit cannot be a basis for dismissing the petitioner’s refund applications unless it is verified that the petitioner did not receive or pay for the goods. In the current situation, there is insufficient evidence to support such claims.Based on the above, the petitioner has the right to receive a refund for the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on exported goods. Therefore, the current petitions are accepted, and the respondents are instructed to immediately process the petitioner’s applications for refund of the ITC, including Cess. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST : Section 54 Read with section 16 (2) of CGST Act,2017 |
GST case laws pdf
GST Case law on Appeals| Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Madras HC directs respondent to accept personal bond in lieu of bank guarantee for stay of assessment order
| High Court: Madras high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Royal Welding Wires Private Limited VS Deputy Commissioner CT |
| Date of Judgment : 01-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.Nos.5936 and 5939 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.5940 and 5942 of 2023 |
| Judges : MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE |
| Counsel Name : Mr.N.Murali |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,62,782/- and Rs.3,55,504/- of the balance amount of taxes due before the learned assessing authority on or before 03.03.2023 and 28.02.2023. With regard to balance tax of Rs.19,25,782/- and Rs.7,12,505/-, the petitioner is directed to file valid security in the form of Bank Guarantee from any of the Nationalized Banks executed in favour of the Assessing Authority concerned on or before 31.07.2023 and 28.07.2023.Thus, there will be a stay with regard to the collection of balance tax amount of Rs.19,25,782/- and Rs.7,12,505/- valid for 6 months i.e. 31.07.2023 and 28.07.2023 or till the disposal of the appeals whichever is earlier. The Bank Guarantee/Security Bond is immovable property shall be kept alive/encumbered till the disposal of the appeals |
| Held by court : Court held that e writ petitions are disposed of by directing the first respondent to accept the Personal Bond of the petitioner for the sum of Rs.19,25,782/- in respect of the assessment year 2016-17 and Rs.7,12,505/- in respect of the assessment year 2017-18 in lieu of the Bank Guarantee amounts, mentioned in the impugned orders dated 02.02.2023 and 30.01.2023 and the petitioner is directed to execute a Personal Bond as directed supra, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the Personal Bond from the petitioner as stated supra, in lieu of the Bank Guarantee, the first respondent is directed to pass final orders on the petitioner’s Statutory Appeals within a period of four weeks thereafter. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. stand closed. No costs |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Bank Guarantee /Security bond for disposal of the appeals |
| Section of GST : Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
Latest GST case laws PDF
GST Case law on Principal of Natural Justice| Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Madras HC says that Personal hearing shall be granted in all matters prior to finalisation of assessment.
Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court: Madras high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : SKS Builders and Promoters VS Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 06-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.Nos.6801 and 6805 of 2023 and WMP Nos.6894 and 6899 of 2023 |
| Judges : DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH |
| Counsel Name : Mr. N.Murali |
| Fact of the Case: The order was passed without giving the petitioner a chance to be heard personally, and without granting the concessional rate of tax for construction services provided to the main contractor who in turn provides such services to the Government. |
| Held By Court : The petitioner had submitted a reply to the notice, although he had not provided any supporting documents. The petitioner had also requested an opportunity for a personal hearing, which was not granted before the impugned order was passed. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act requires that an opportunity for a personal hearing be granted if an adverse order is proposed to be passed. Therefore, the impugned order violated Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice, and must be set aside. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : General Provisions |
| Section of GST : Section 75(4) of CGST Act,2017 |
PDF of latest GST case laws
GST Case law on Unjustifiable Writ Petition | Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Supreme Court orders said Writ Petition considered by Sikkim High Court is unjustifiable
latest gst judgements| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court: Supreme court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : The state of Goa VS Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Limited & ORS. |
| Date of Judgment : 14-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1700/2023 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 29890/2018) |
| Judges : S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA |
| Counsel Name : |
| Fact of the Case: All three writ petitions dispute rate-notifications issued by Goa, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Sikkim and various notifications under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Integrated GST Act, 2017. The challenge is to the Government of Goa’s notice “No. 01/2017” dated 30 June 2017 levying 14% tax on state-authorized lottery. The writ petitioners have asked the High Court to declare the challenged notification invalid and illegal under its high prerogative writ authority. Whether the High Court was justified in returning the finding that “at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court” and premised on such a finding, to dismiss the applications, is the straightforward question that arises for a decision on these appeals. |
| Held by court : Goa has taxed the petitioning company’s Goa business. The petitioning company pays such tax not for doing business in Sikkim. Thus, the petitioning company’s office in Gangtok, Sikkim does not constitute a cause of action authorising it to move the High Court.The High Court’s dismissal of interim applications was unjustified. The High Court should have regarded forum convenient if a little part of the cause of action originated in Sikkim. Even if a minor part of the cause of action exists within a high court’s territorial jurisdiction, that alone could not have persuaded the High Court to keep the writ petitions alive against the appellant to consider the subject regarding the impugned notification on merit. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept : Writ Jurisdiction |
GST latest judgment PDF
GST Case law on Opportunity of Being Heard | Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Madras HC says no opportunity granted to petitioner prior to passing of impugned order is fatal flaw
free gst case laws
| High Court: Madras high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Pinstar Automotive India Pvt. Ltd VS Additional Commissioner |
| Date of Judgment : 20-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.No.8493 of 2023 and WMP No.8686 of 2023 |
| Judges : DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH |
| Counsel Name : Mr.V.Veeraraghavan |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the respondent for the purposes of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘Act’) in relation to the period of assessment July, 2017 to March, 2019. The petitioner had received pre-assessment notice dated 17.09.2021 in regard to the issue relating to invocation of Section 16(2)(c) of the Act. The case of the respondent is as follows: (i) Certain supplies had been made to the petitioner by third parties and the petitioner has averred that the entirety of the amount including tax has been paid to the suppliers. (ii) While this is so, it is the stand of the petitioner that those suppliers are delinquent insofar as that their registrations have been cancelled and the tax paid by the petitioner has not been remitted by them to the Department. |
| Held by court : Court held that there has been no opportunity granted to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order dated 20.01.2023 and this is a fatal flaw. Order dated 20.01.2023 is set aside. The petitioner shall be heard by issue of notice and orders passed on the Section 161 application within a period of four (4) weeks from today. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Input Tax Credit ,Opportunity of being Heard |
| Section of GST : Section 16(2) (C) of CGST Act,2017, Section 161 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST latest judgment PDF
GST Case law on E-way Bill| Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Calcutta High Court held that Travelling without proper e way bill attracts penalty
gst case laws digest
| High Court: Calcutta High court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Pushpa Devi Jain VS Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal Headquarters & Ors. |
| Date of Judgment : 03-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : WPA 178 of 2023 |
| Judges : Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyya. Mr. Sougata Banerjee, Mr. Biswajit Basak, Ms. Stuti Bansal |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner had initially started the journey with a valid e-way bill but it expired before reaching the final destination. As a result, the goods were transported without a valid e-way bill. The petitioner paid the penalty without any objection. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Adjudicating Authority lacked supporting documents and was very formal. The issues were raised for the first time before the High Court. The petitioner claimed that the delay was due to the breakdown of the vehicle, but no document supported this statement. The state was not responsible for the delay in the movement of goods. The petitioner cited practical difficulty in revalidating the expired e-way bill. |
| Held by court : The provision to revalidate an e-way bill must be strictly complied with, even if it is practically difficult to implement, as long as it remains in the rule book. The intention of the parties committing the violation is irrelevant, and travelling without a proper e-way bill attracts penalty. The authorities did not act in any manner contrary to law. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : E-way Bill |
| Section of GST : Rule 138A to 138D of CGST Rules,2017 |
gst case laws digest pdf
GST Case law on Cancellation of Registration| Recent GST Case Laws 2023.
Delhi High Court directs to cancel the registration with effect from 31-07-2021 as requested by petitioner.
gst related case laws| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Parshant Timber VS Commissioner of Delhi GST and another ANR. |
| Date of Judgment : 10-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) 1734/2023 & CM APPL. 6618/2023 |
| Judges : MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta, Parveen Kumar Gambhir and Mr. Shailendra Kr. Verma |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner argued that his request to cancel his registration based on the discontinuation or closure of his business had been denied. |
| Held by court : The petitioner had applied for the cancellation of their GST registration on the ground of discontinuance or closure of business. As a result, they did not file returns for the subsequent period. The order rejecting their application did not seem to be well-considered, as there was no reply filed, and the show-cause notice did not provide any specific reason for the rejection. Therefore, the order was unsustainable. The petition was allowed, and the authority was directed to cancel the registration from the requested date. However, this cancellation would not prevent the authorities from taking action to recover any outstanding tax, interest, or penalty.. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : GST Registration |
| Section of GST : Section 29 & 30 of CGST Act,2017 |
recent gst judgment pdf
GST Case law on inspection and Seizure of Goods| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Calcutta High Court orders to refund the amount of Penalty with in 4 weeks
gst related case laws| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court: Calcutta high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Sandip Kumar Singhal VS Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Bureau of Investigation North Bengal Headquarter & Ors. |
| Date of Judgment : 10-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : WPA 321 of 2023 |
| Judges : Justice Amrita Sinha |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Sandip Choraria, Mr. Rajeev Parik, Ms. Esha Acharya |
| Fact of the Case: The goods of the petitioner were seized on 22nd February, 2022 at 2 pm. from a godown upon invoking the provision of Section 67(2) of the said Act. The order of seizure issued in Form GST INS-02 dated 22nd February, 2022 mentions that, on inspection of the goods under Section 67(1) of the Act and on scrutiny of the books of accounts, registers, documents/papers and goods found during inspection/search there were reasons to believe that the goods were liable to be confiscated and the same were seized by invoking power under Section 67(2) of the Act. A report of satisfaction that the goods were liable to be confiscated was prepared on the same date at 4.30 pm. The e-way bill status of the goods mentions that the e-way bill already expired on the date of inspection and seizure. |
| Held by court : Court Held that the impugned order of the adjudicating authority and the appellate forum are liable to be set aside and, are accordingly, set aside. The respondent authority is directed to refund the amount collected from the petitioner as penalty positively within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. It will, however, be open for the authority to assess the penalty, if any, payable by the petitioner for offloading goods and storing the same at a place not mentioned in the e-way bill. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Inspection and Seizure of goods |
| Section of GST : Section 129(3) & Section 67 of CGST Act,2017 |
recent gst judgment pdf
GST Case law on Bail request | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
High Court turns down the bail request because nothing has changed since the bail petition was turned down before and the court is worried that witnesses may be hurt.
gst related case laws| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court: Punjab & Haryana high court judgment on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Ashu Gupta VS State of Haryana |
| Date of Judgment : 03-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : CRM-M NO. 56039 OF 2022 |
| Judges : J. Asgurpreet Singh Puri, J. |
| Counsel Name : Vikram Chaudhari , Sajal Bansal |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner argued that an FIR has been lodged against him and he has been in custody for a year, even though the alleged amount is less than Rs. 5 crores and the proper procedure would have been to file a complaint before the Magistrate, making it a bailable offence. |
| Held by court :The petitioner is accused of cheating and fabricating bills and documents. The offenses under the GST law and IPC are different from each other. The allegations against the petitioner pertain to wrongful benefit obtained by taking input tax credit without physical movement of goods and only through paper transactions. The circumstances have not changed since the earlier bail petition was dismissed. The department is concerned that if the petitioner is granted bail, he may threaten witnesses. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail and the petition is dismissed. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : Bail |
| Section of GST : Section 132 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Rectification of Mistake| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
High Court says Commissioner who passed Order-in-Original who was required to deal with an application for rectification of mistake
gst related case laws| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court: Sikkim High Court Judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : ICFAI University Sikkim vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 02-03-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (C) NO. 42 OF 2022 |
| Judges : BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J. |
| Counsel Name : G. Shivadass, Prashanth Shivadass, Taraka Srinivas and Ms. Anusha Basnet |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner had applied for rectification of an order-in-original, but was dissatisfied with a communication dated 23-1-2018 issued by the Joint Commissioner of CGST. The communication stated that the Commissioner of CGST did not consider the points raised in the application to be covered under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore disposed of the application for rectification of mistakes. |
| Held by court : Under section 74(1) of the CGST Act, the Commissioner who passed the Order-in-Original was obligated to address an application for rectification of mistake. Hence, the communication issued by the Joint Commissioner stating that the application was not covered under section 74 and that it was disposed of is to be nullified. The Commissioner, CGST is instructed to evaluate the rectification application filed by the petitioner and issue a written order. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Rectification of Mistake |
| Section of GST : Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
FAQs
What is the High Court Judgement on e-way bill?
Here, in the case of Pushpa Devi Jain VS Assistant Commissioner of Revenue court held that the provision to revalidate an e-way bill must be strictly complied with, even if it is practically difficult to implement, as long as it remains in the rule book. The intention of the parties committing the violation is irrelevant, and travelling without a proper e-way bill attracts penalty. The authorities did not act in any manner contrary to law.
What is the Judgement on the principle of natural justice?
In case of Shree Shyam Granites and Marbles VS Assistant Commissioner , court held that Personal hearing should only be granted after receiving a reply from the petitioner, and only when the respondent anticipates an unfavorable decision against the petitioner. Moreover, personal hearing should only be granted when the reply is duly acknowledged in the impugned orders.
Read similar article