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 September 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of September 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 Games of Skill | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Supreme Court granted an interim stay on the order of the High Court.
| High Court : Supreme Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (Hqs) vs. Gameskraft Technologies (P.) Ltd. |
| Date of Judgment : 06-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : SLP TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).19366-19369 OF 2023 |
| Judges : J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ |
| Counsel Name : N. Venkatraman, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Rupesh Kumar, Adv., Annirudh Sharma Ii, Udai Khanna, and V.C. Bharathi. |
| Fact of the Case: The High Court of Karnataka held that online/offline/physical/electronic/digital rummy games and other games played with or without stakes on the assessee’s mobile app are not covered by the term “betting and gambling” in Entry 6 of Schedule III to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as they are substantially and preponderantly games of skill and not of chance. Therefore, they are not taxable. |
| Held by court : The impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court shall be stayed until further orders. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Online and offline games |
| Section of GST: Sections 2(17), 7, 9 and 74 read with Entry 6 of Schedule III to Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
GST Case law on Detention of goods and conveyance | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Allahabad High court says Once the owner of the goods came forward, the levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) could not be justified
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Khan Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner |
| Date of Judgment : 04-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 857 OF 2021 |
| Judges : PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. |
| Counsel Name : Aditya Pandey |
| Fact of the Case: The goods were intercepted while being transported from Gurgaon, Haryana to Robertsganj, Uttar Pradesh. The goods were detained on the grounds that the driver subsequently stated that the goods were to be unloaded at Ghaziabad, and not at Robertsganj. However, this fact was not mentioned in the detention order (Form GST MOV-6) issued by the detaining/seizing authority. Additionally, the seizing authority did not find any discrepancies in the accompanying goods with regard to quantity, quality, or item as disclosed. Therefore, the detention of the goods could not be justified. The goods were accompanied by a tax invoice and a valid e-way bill on the date of detention/interception (September 30, 2020) and the date of order (October 5, 2020). In fact, the validity of the e-way bill with respect to the earlier transaction was valid until October 6, 2020. |
| Held by court : Since a subsequent e-way bill was generated and submitted to the detention authority before the expiry of the earlier e-way bill, the seizure of the goods could not be justified. The subsequent statement of the truck driver alleging that the goods were to be unloaded at Ghaziabad instead of Robertsganj could not be recorded without any cogent material on record. This showed that the action taken against the petitioner was perverse. The physical verification report (Form GST MOV-04) dated October 5, 2020 showed that the goods were as per the disclosed documents. In the absence of any justification to treat the goods differently, the action of seizure, detention, and demand of penalty was vitiated. Once the owner of the goods came forward, the levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) could not be justified. Section 129(1)(a) provides that where the owner of the goods comes forward to pay the penalty, the amount of penalty payable should be 200% of the tax payable. However, in this case, the penalty was levied at 200% of the value of the goods. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent no. 2 cannot be sustained and must be set aside. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Detention of goods & conveyance |
| Section of GST: Section 129 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Anticipatory Bail | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Supreme Court says fraudulently availing and passing on input tax credit (ITC), was not granted anticipatory bail.
| High Court : Supreme Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Hira Gobind Bhatia vs. State of Central Goods & Service Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 01-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL) NO(S). 10526 OF 2023 |
| Judges : HRISHIKESH ROY AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Ms. Mohua Sinha, Nawalendra Kumar, Rishabh Kumar, and Shekhar Kumar |
| Fact of the Case: Input tax credit was claimed and passed on illegally. The High Court had denied anticipatory bail to the co-accused in the impugned order, citing his active involvement in the crime. He had been controlling all activities, including bank accounts, of the main accused, who had already been arrested. The court held that the fact that the co-accused was willing to join the investigation was not a ground for granting him anticipatory bail in a grave economic offence. The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court. |
| Held by court : The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the petitioner, as there was no error in the order of the High Court rejecting his pre-arrest bail application. The Court held that the circumstances of the case and the allegations against the petitioner did not warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Anticipatory Bail |
| Section of GST: Section 132 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article