The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws 2023. All latest high court judgements on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in November 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of November 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 Gift Voucher | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Madras High Court says the writ petition was to be partially allowed, providing clarification on the taxability of Gift vouchers/Cards.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 27-11-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 5130 OF 2022 W.M.P. NOS. 5227 AND 5228 OF 2022 |
| Judges : C. SARAVANAN, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Aparna Nandakumar |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of ornaments across India through its retail outlets, implemented a sales promotion scheme. As part of this initiative, the petitioner introduced various types of Pre-Paid Instruments (PPIs)/Gift Vouchers. These “Gift Vouchers” were not only sold in the petitioner’s retail stores but also made available through online portals by utilizing the services of third-party service providers. |
| Held by court : Tax is required to be paid on “Gift Voucher/Card” issued for specified and identified goods at the time of issuance, as it constitutes a supply of an identified good under Section 12(4)(a). Conversely, if the “Gift Voucher/Card” is issued for unspecified goods to be purchased in the future from a range of products offered by the petitioner, tax is payable on the actual “goods” or “merchandise” only at the time of redemption, as per Section 12(4)(b). The writ petition was to be partially allowed, providing clarification on the taxability of Gift vouchers/Cards. |
| In favor of : Partially allowed |
| Topic of GST : Supply |
| Section of GST: Section 12 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Input Tax Credit Fraud | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Allahabad High court says there was no need for intervention in the said order as the petitioner did not successfully fulfill their responsibility to conclusively demonstrate the reality of the transactions
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Shiv Trading vs. State of U.P |
| Date of Judgment : 28-11-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 1421 OF 2022 |
| Judges : PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. |
| Counsel Name : Pranjal Shukla |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, involved in the business of buying and selling iron machinery parts and hardware, claimed input tax credit on purchases made from a particular company. However, upon inspection, it was discovered that this company did not exist, leading to allegations that the petitioner’s transactions were bogus, fictitious, and fake. Consequently, an order was issued against the petitioner, imposing tax, penalty, and interest. |
| Held by court : The petitioner did not successfully fulfill their responsibility to conclusively demonstrate the reality of the transactions, the actual physical movement of goods, and the authenticity of these transactions. As a result, the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under section 74 was justified. Therefore, there was no need for intervention in the said order, and the writ petition was appropriately subject to dismissal. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit Fraud |
| Section of GST: Section 16 & Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case laws on Refund in case of accumulated ITC | Recent GST case laws 2023
Calcutta High court says the petitioner, who complied by submitting necessary documents, should not be penalized.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Vaishnodevi Advisory (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 24-11-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.A. NO. 2370 OF 2023 |
| Judges : AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Boudhayan Bhattacharyya, Sougata Banerjee, Ms. Stuti Bansal and Bodhisatya Ghosh |
| Fact of the Case: An appeal was lodged with the appellate authority against the review of a refund order of accumulated input tax credit, which was partially upheld. The appellate authority determined that the refund sanction order was flawed due to the inclusion of FOB values of twelve shipping bills, which were signed and approved by an Inspector of Customs, who lacked the requisite authorization as per Section 51 of the Customs Act. |
| Held by court : The signing of documents by Customs officials was a minor procedural error on the part of the customs department, and for this, the petitioner should not face penalties, especially since they submitted documents both online and physically for the clearance of exported goods under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the appellate order should be overturned, and the revenue department instructed to re-examine the matter after a detailed review of the documents and verification of the shipping bills, making a new decision after consulting all relevant departments. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund in case of accumulated ITC |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Penalty | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Allahabad High court says the only allegation was of delayed payment, not evasion, and under section 126(2), the maximum penalty in such cases is Rs 10,000
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Clear Secured Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, State Tax GST |
| Date of Judgment : 23-11-2023 |
| Appeal No :WRIT TAX NOS. 1 & 5 OF 2023 |
| Judges : PANKAJ BHATIA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Jameel Ahmad |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, engaged in manpower supply services, received a notice claiming they failed to pay GST on time and were subject to a penalty of Rs.28,00,476 under section 122(1)(iii). Due to the constraints of COVID-19, the petitioner couldn’t respond, leading to an ex-parte order that imposed the penalty specified in the show-cause notice. |
| Held by court : The record contained no evidence or accusation that the petitioner collected but did not remit the amount, only that it was paid late. In this scenario, the maximum penalty should be Rs 10,000. Given the appellate authority’s failure to adhere to the standard penalty procedures, particularly the requirements of Section 126(2), the order levying the penalty was to be overturned, and the petitioner was instructed to pay a penalty of Rs 10,000. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Penalty |
| Section of GST: Section 122 & 126 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case laws on Late Fees | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Kerala High court says anyone filing GSTR 9/9C for the financial years from 2017-18 to 31.08.2023 should be entitled to a reduced late fee,
| High Court : Kerala High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Saloom Trading vs. Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 22-11-2023 |
| Appeal No : WP(C) NO. 32069 OF 2023 |
| Judges : WP(C) NO. 32069 OF 2023 |
| Fact of the Case: The dealer, served with a notice under Section 47 and seeking the benefits of CBIC Notification no. 08/2023 dated 31-03-2023 for waiving the late fee under Section 47, found the court initially agreeing that anyone who filed GSTR 9/9C for fiscal years 2017-18 to 2021-22 by 31-08-2023 should qualify for the reduced late fee. Thus, the dealer was preliminarily deemed eligible for this benefit. |
| Held by court : The respondent-department was granted a week to submit an affidavit clarifying the rationale for differing treatments of those who filed GSTR-9/9C before 01-04-2023 and those who filed between 01-04-2023 and 31-08-2023, as per the CBIC Notification no. 08/2023 dated 31-03-2023. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Late Fees |
| Section of GST: section 47 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Appeal | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Orissa High court says the writ petition against the order of the First Appellate Authority is considered maintainable in absence of Second Appellate Tribunal.
| High Court : Orissa High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Sanjay Kumar Nayak vs. Commissioner of CT & GST, Cuttack |
| Date of Judgment : 02-11-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P (C) NO.35107 OF 2023 I.A. NO. 16994 OF 2023 |
| Judges : DR. B.R. SARANGI, ACTING CJ. AND MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J. |
| Counsel Name : A.K. Biswal |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, dissatisfied with the decision of the revenue authority, appealed to the Tribunal seeking a stay on recovery. The first appellate authority rejected the appeal, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition before the High Court challenging the First Appellate Authority’s order. The petitioner argued that since the Second Appellate Tribunal had not been constituted, the High Court should consider the writ petition. |
| Held by court : The writ petition was deemed admissible since the Second Appellate Tribunal had not been established. As an interim measure, the petitioner was required to deposit the entire tax demand within fifteen days; the remainder of the demand would be stayed throughout the pendency of the writ petition. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to Tribunal |
| Section of GST: Section 112 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case laws on Online betting and Gambling | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Gujarat High court says the revenue was restrained from taking any further steps on adjudication of notice till petitioners gaming platform constitutes an actionable claim.
| High Court : Gujarat High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : NXGN Sports Interactive (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 03-11-2023 |
| Appeal No :R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 19183 & 19243 OF 2023 |
| Judges : BIREN VAISHNAV AND MRS. MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ |
| Counsel Name : Mihir Joshi and Sandeep Singhi, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner contested the show cause notice issued by the revenue authority, and the pivotal issue was whether the petitioner’s gaming platform would be categorized as an actionable claim constituting betting and gambling. |
| Held by court : The aforementioned questions necessitate comprehensive consideration; therefore, as a provisional measure, the revenue authority was enjoined from progressing further in the adjudication of the show cause notice. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Actionable claims |
| Section of GST: Section 2(52) of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case laws on Refund of IGST in case of SEZ Unit | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Madras High court says it was not the fault of the assessee, and it was the responsibility of the AO to make the endorsement in a timely manner
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Lenovo (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of GST (Appeals-1) |
| Date of Judgment : 06-11-2023 |
| Appeal No :W.P. NOS. 23604, 23605 AND 23607 OF 2022 |
| Judges : KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. |
| Counsel Name : Raghavan Ramabadran, Lakshmi Kumaran and Sridharan Attorneys |
| Fact of the Case: The refund of IGST to the SEZ unit for the period of December 2019 to February 2020 is subject to the view that the time limit set under section 54(1) is directory and not mandatory, allowing for the submission of a refund application even beyond two years in appropriate cases; thus, the delay in filing supporting documents at the time of reply/personal hearing merely extends the time limit for order under section 54(7), and the non-submission of documents during the initial refund application cannot be deemed a delay, particularly when the amendment to section 16, requiring rules for the authorized use of goods, is prospective from October 1, 2023, and does not retroactively apply to supplies made to the SEZ unit before this date. |
| Held by court : The denial of the IGST refund claim, based on the failure to obtain an endorsement within 45 days for authorized operation in the SEZ, should be set aside, as it was not the fault of the assessee, and it was the responsibility of the AO to make the endorsement in a timely manner; the requirement to file a refund application within two years under section 54 is not mandatory, and in suitable circumstances, the application can be submitted even beyond the two-year period. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST :Refund of IGST in case SEZ Unit |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 & Section 16 of IGST Act,2017 |
GST Case laws on Input Tax Credit | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Gujarat High Court says transferee company is not obligated to electronically file Form GST ITC-02 if the form is not available on the GST portal.
| High Court : Gujarat High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Tikona Infinet (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat |
| Date of Judgment : 08-11-2023 |
| Appeal No :R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19457 OF 2023 |
| Judges : BIREN VAISHNAV AND MRS. MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Prasad Paranjape, Adv. and Dhaval Shah |
| Fact of the Case: The transferee company, the petitioner, sought to transfer unused input tax credit in accordance with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules, 2017; however, due to the unavailability of the transfer functionality for Form ITC-02 on the common portal, the petitioner was unable to adhere to the prescribed requirements. In response, the petitioner manually submitted Form ITC-02, as detailed in the letter dated 12-2-2018, to the revenue authority. Despite these efforts, the revenue authority issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner for the alleged failure to electronically file the form. |
| Held by court : Upon the petitioner’s timely response to the show-cause notice, the revenue was promptly instructed to evaluate the petitioner’s case in light of their own precedent, as determined by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 859 of 2023. The court held in that case that a transferee company is not obligated to electronically file Form GST ITC-02 if the form is not available on the GST portal. The revenue was further directed to issue an appropriate order in accordance with the law, giving due consideration to the Allahabad High Court’s findings regarding the non-availability of Form ITC-02 on the online portal of GST. |
| In favor of :Assessee |
| Topic of GST :Input Tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 18(3) of CGST Act,2023 |
GST Case laws on Registration | Recent GST Case laws 2023
Madras high court says as the fault lay solely with the accountant; thus it is necessary to reinstate the assessee’s registration.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : E. Dharmaraj vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 17-11-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 28339 OF 2023 |
| Judges : KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Akila |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee, operating as a lorry owner-cum-driver, faced cancellation of their GST registration due to their accountant’s error in filing continuous NIL GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns without proper direction, leading authorities to assume no business activity and cancel the GST registration. Despite not taking action to reinstate the cancelled GSTIN, the auditor submitted GSTR-10, acknowledging the cancellation. Unbeknownst to the assessee, their GST registration was reinstated, yet they continued to issue invoices amounting to Rs. 25,03,905, payments for which were withheld by the client due to the lack of an active GSTIN. |
| Held by court : Since the petitioner’s transactions were genuine and the mistake was solely by the accountant who filed GSTR-10 returns after being aware of the assessee’s GSTIN registration cancellation, the challenged order was deemed appropriate for reversal, and the restoration of the GSTIN registration was warranted. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 29 & 30 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article