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 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 Show cause Notice | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Delhi High court says Summary in electronic form is required to be furnished along with Show Cause Notice
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Shubham Gupta vs. Additional Commissioner/ Joint Commissioner CGST |
| Date of Judgment : 21-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 12457 OF 2023 |
| Judges : VIBHU BAKHRU AND TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, JJ |
| Counsel Name : Akhil K. Maggu, Naveen Malhotra and Ritvik Malhotra |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner received a show-cause notice proposing a penalty, but the summary of the proposed demand was not communicated electronically in Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-02, as required by Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. |
| Held by court : While the proper officer should issue a summary of notice and demands electronically in Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-02, furnishing such summary at this stage would be substantial compliance with legal provisions, even though it was required to be furnished along with the show-cause notice. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Adjudication |
| Section of GST: Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 & Rule 142 of CGST Rules,2017 |
GST Case law on Recovery & Natural Justice | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Telangana High Court says action of respondent authorities were in clear violation of principles of natural justice
| High Court : Telangana High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Kesoram Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 20-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 23431 OF 2023 |
| Judges : P. SAM KOSHY AND LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Srinivas Chatruvedula |
| Fact of the Case: The respondent authorities violated the principles of natural justice by issuing garnishee proceedings under section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017, without first issuing a notice to the assessee under section 79(1) of the Act to submit his reply/explanation to the demand notice for delayed payments. The garnishee proceedings directed the petitioner’s bankers to debit the alleged tax dues referred to in section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. |
| Held by court : Under sections 73, 74, and 79 of the CGST Act and Rules, 2017, the authorities must issue a notice to the assessee under section 73(1) and give them a chance to respond before issuing garnishee proceedings under section 79. In this case, the respondent authorities calculated that the petitioner owes Rs. 1,28,97,355 for late filing of the GSTR 3B return and issued garnishee notices under section 47(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, without giving the petitioner a chance to explain or clarify the non-payment of tax and interest on late payment. Therefore, the respondent authorities’ actions in issuing proceedings under section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, were a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Recovery & Natural Justice |
| Section of GST: Section 79 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Reverse Charge Mechanism | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Telangana High Court says RCM will be applicable on a Managing Director’s personal property and guarantee provided to a bank as security
| High Court : Telangana High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : BST Steels (P.) Ltd. vs. Superintendent of Central Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 27-09-2023 |
| Appeal No :WRIT PETITION NO.21384 OF 2023 |
| Judges : P.SAM KOSHY AND LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : |
| Fact of the Case: The Central Government, through Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated June 28, 2017, specifically notified that services provided by a Director to their company or body corporate would be leviable of tax on a reverse charge basis. This means that the company would be liable to pay GST on such services. |
| Held by court : The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) correctly upheld the Superintendent of Central Tax’s decision to levy tax on a reverse charge basis. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Reverse Charge Mechenism |
| Section of GST: Section 9 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Appeal to appellate authority | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Andhra Pradesh High court says petitioner has met all the requirement for filling appeal
| High Court : Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Kotla Kanakeswara Rao vs. Additional Commissioner |
| Date of Judgment : 22-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 22926 OF 2023 |
| Judges : U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : |
| Fact of the Case: Petitioner filed a special appeal against the revenue’s rejection of their appeal against the assessment order, which was based on two grounds: a delay in filing the appeal electronically and a failure to deposit 10% of the disputed tax. |
| Held by court : The petitioner’s delay in filing the electronic appeal was due to the revenue’s failure to upload the assessment order to the official website in a timely manner. The petitioner also deposited the required 10% of the disputed tax at the time of manual filing, as evidenced by the challan copy. Therefore, the petitioner had duly complied with all the requirements for filing an appeal, and the impugned endorsement should be set aside. The respondent should be directed to register the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to appellate authority |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner filed a special appeal against the revenue’s rejection of their appeal against the assessment order, which was based on two grounds: a delay in filing the appeal electronically and a failure to deposit 10% of the disputed tax. |
GST Case law on Registration | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Madras High Court says that appeal was rejected as its filed beyond limitation period.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Chelliah Meenambigai vs. Commercial of CGST and Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 25-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (MD) NO. 23345 OF 2023 |
| Judges : MRS. S. SRIMATHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : R. Veeramanikandan |
| Fact of the Case: Petitioner appealed the cancellation of their registration certificate, despite being unaware of it until other taxpayers informed them much later. |
| Held by court : Appellate authority rejected appeal on ground that it was beyond period of limitation. benefit was to be extended to petitioner |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 29 of CGST Act,2017. Section 107 of CGST Act,2023 |
GST Case laws on Refund of IGST | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Gujarat High court says that Since the respondent authorities had already received the application for amendment of shipping bills, they were required to make a decision on the application.
| High Court : Gujarat High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Forward Crop Protection (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 21-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1941 OF 2022 |
| Judges : BIREN VAISHNAV AND BHARGAV D. KARIA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ajit S. Nair |
| Fact of the Case: The taxpayer requested to amend their shipping bills to reflect that IGST was paid on each bill, and to immediately sanction a refund of the IGST paid on the export of pesticides, which are zero-rated supplies. They also claimed interest on the refund. |
| Held by court : The respondent authorities must decide on the application for amendment of shipping bills that has already been submitted to them. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund of IGST |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on GST Authorities & administration | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
High Court says the investigation has been transferred to the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, no further instructions are required.
| High Court : Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgment 2023 |
| Name of case : Sanraj Metals (P.) Ltd. vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence |
| Date of Judgment : 25-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : CWP NO. 15452 OF 2022 (O & M) |
| Judges : MS. RITU BAHRI AND MRS. MANISHA BATRA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Gursimran Singh Jossan and Birinderpal Singh, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner has challenged the summons issued under section 70 of the Central GST Act, 2017, arguing that it is barred by section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, as the State GST authorities had already initiated an investigation. However, the investigation was transferred to the Meerut Zonal Unit of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Gurugram (South), has transferred the investigation to the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit. |
| Held by court : No further direction was required to be given in instant case. |
| In favor of : |
| Topic of GST : GST Authorities & administration |
| Section of GST: section 6 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Input Tax Credit | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Kerala High Court says that input tax credit could not be denied merely based on the discrepancy between GSTR 2A and 3B
| Court : Kerala High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : Henna Medicals vs. State Tax Officer |
| Date of Judgment : 19-09-2023 |
| Appeal No : WP(C) NO. 30660 OF 2023 |
| Judges : DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. |
| Counsel Name : Rajesh Nambiar and Sindhu K. Nambiar |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner’s claim for input tax credit was denied by the revenue authorities due to a difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. The petitioner challenged the assessment order and recovery notice. |
| Held by court : Given the Supreme Court ruling in The State of Karnataka v. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited and other judicial precedents, input tax credit cannot be denied solely based on a discrepancy between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. Therefore, the matter must be remitted back to the revenue authorities to examine the petitioner’s evidence for their claim for input tax credit, regardless of Form GSTR 2A. |
| In favor of : Matter remanded |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit -Difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B |
| Section of GST: Section 16 , Section 61 of CGST Act,2017 |
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.
| 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.
| 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