The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws 2024. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in February 2024 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of February 2024 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 GST Appeal Dismissal Overturned | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Delhi High Court says the Commissioner (Appeals) made a mistake by not looking into the taxpayer’s request to excuse the delay.
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : White Mountain Trading (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II |
| Date of Judgment : 23-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (C) NO. 2752 OF 2024 CM APPL. NOS. 11183 AND 84 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SANJEEV SACHDEVA AND RAVINDER DUDEJA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Srijan Sinha and Naveen Soni, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 2-9-2023 against an original order dated 4-5-2023, using the online process. However, the appeal was rejected because it was considered late and beyond the allowed timeframe. The dismissal order stated that the appeal was filed on 25-9-2023, which exceeded the permissible time limit. According to the law, appeals must be filed within 3 months (90 days) as per section 107. Since the deadline for filing the appeal was 3-8-2023, the dismissal was based on the appeal being filed more than a month after the deadline. The rule allows for a grace period of up to one month if there is a valid reason for the delay. In this case, the initial online submission date of 2-9-2023 should have been considered as the filing date. Therefore, the appeal was actually filed within the one-month grace period after the deadline. The Commissioner (Appeals) made an error by not considering the petitioner’s request to excuse the delay. As a result, the dismissal order should be overturned, and the matter should be reviewed concerning the request for condonation of delay. |
| Held by court : The deadline for filing the appeal under section 107 was set for 3-8-2023, allowing a 3-month period for submission. However, the order under review stated that the appeal was actually submitted on 25-9-2023, which was more than a month after the deadline. According to the law, only delays of up to one month can be excused if a valid reason is provided. In this case, the date of filing is typically considered to be the initial submission date online, which was 2-9-2023. Therefore, the appeal was technically submitted within the one-month grace period after the deadline. The Commissioner (Appeals) made an error by not considering the request to excuse the delay. As a result, the order should be revoked, and the matter should be reevaluated to consider the request for excusing the delay. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Cognizance of Offence | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Allahabad High Court says prosecution could ensue based on an independent assessment by the commissioner, given that the assessee was not part of the adjudication process.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Ravi Kumar Jain vs.Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 15-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 158 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH AND MANJIVE SHUKLA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Rahul Agarwal |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner argues that they were not notified or involved in the adjudication process resulting in the impugned order. They further contend that the authority to grant permission for prosecution is distinct from adjudication proceedings and is not within the scope of quasi-judicial proceedings. Additionally, they argue that the observations made in the adjudication order, which found the petitioner guilty, effectively prejudge the issue. This not only amounts to granting permission to prosecute the petitioner but also potentially influences the criminal court where any related criminal complaint may arise, potentially preventing it from reaching independent conclusions apart from those recorded by the adjudicating authority |
| Held by court : The satisfaction required under section 134 of the CGST Act, 2017 must be documented by the commissioner. The additional commissioner who issued the adjudication order was not the commissioner. The petitioner was not part of the adjudication proceedings and was not given a chance to present their case before adverse observations were made in the impugned order. Consequently, any prosecution, if pursued, should only arise from an independent assessment by the commissioner, considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, free from bias due to ex parte observations in the impugned order |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Cognizant of Offence |
| Section of GST: Section 134 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Registration| Recent GST Case laws 2024
High Court says appeal is maintainable against cancellation of registration if its filed within 7 month from cancellation.
| High Court : Jharkhand High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Rana Engineering vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 23-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : WP(T) NO. 6387 OF 2023 |
| Judges : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ACJ.AND ARUN KUMAR RAI, J. |
| Counsel Name : Shresth Gautam |
| Fact of the Case: The GST registration of the petitioner firm was revoked due to its failure to file returns for a continuous period exceeding six months. The appeal challenging the cancellation order was dismissed on the grounds of its non-maintainability and being barred by limitation. |
| Held by court : Under section 107(3) and (4) of the CGST Act, 2017, the delay in filing an appeal could have been extended by the Appellate Authority, as the initial period of three months could be further extended by another three months and additionally by one month. Hence, the appeal filed on 26-8-2023, which fell within seven months from the date of the cancellation order, was permissible and should not have been rejected on the grounds of delay. Moreover, the petitioner could have alternatively been given the opportunity to approach the appropriate authority under section 30 for the revocation of the cancellation of the license, upon payment of applicable penalties, fines, and interest. The petitioner should be allowed to file an application under section 30 after completing all formalities within 30 days, and this application should be processed in accordance with the law. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 30 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Post-Completion contract Price Revision |Recent GST Case laws 2024
Orissa High court says The petitioner company received an acceptance letter for a specific task with the condition that the rates included GST. However, the subsequent communication stating that the rates were exclusive of GST after the completion of the work was deemed arbitrary and unlawful, requiring it to be nullified
| High Court : Orissa High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Kalinga Combines (P.) Ltd.vs. Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) |
| Date of Judgment : 15-02-2024 |
| Appeal No :W.P.(C) NO. 33904 OF 2021 |
| Judges : CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, CJ. AND D. DASH, J. |
| Counsel Name :Gouri Mohan Rath, |
| Fact of the Case: After winning the bid for construction work, the petitioner-company agreed to a price that included GST in the acceptance letter. They finished the work as agreed. However, the other party later said the price didn’t include GST. The petitioners objected, saying this change in terms after completing the work was unfair and against the law. |
| Held by court : The other party was not allowed to change the terms in the acceptance letter after the petitioner finished the work. As a result, the disputed communication was considered invalid, and any actions taken based on it were seen as illegal. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Change in Tax Rate |
| Section of GST: Section 14 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Input tax credit | Recent GST case laws 2024
Madras High Court says Input tax credit can not be rejected solely on ground that taxpayer had not claim ITC in GSTR-3B
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals vs. State Tax Officer |
| Date of Judgment : 20-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NOS.3804, 3808 & 3813 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 4105, 4107 OF 2024 AND OTHS |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. P. Jayalakshmi and S. Muthu Venkataraman |
| Fact of the Case: Input tax credit (ITC) eligibility and conditions for claiming credit for the period from 2017 to 2020: The petitioner-assessee, engaged in the trade of electrical products and hardware, asserts eligibility for ITC for the assessment years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, duly reflected in GSTR 2A returns. The assessee contends that GSTR-9 (annual) returns were filed, duly reflecting the assessee’s ITC claims. However, the said ITC claims were rejected on the grounds that the assessee had not claimed ITC in GSTR 3B returns. |
| Held by court : When a registered person asserts eligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on GSTR-2A and GSTR-9 returns, the assessing officer should scrutinize the validity of the ITC claim by examining all pertinent documents, including by requesting the registered person to furnish such documents. However, in the present case, the rejection of the ITC claims was solely based on the failure to claim ITC in GSTR 3B returns, without any reference to GSTR-2A and GSTR-9 returns. Consequently, the order rejecting the said claim was to be invalidated, and the matter was to be remanded back. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax credit |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Reversal of Input Tax credit | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Madras High Court says ITC can not be reversed solely on the ground that supplier ‘s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Engineering Tools Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 15-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO.3505 OF 2024 AND W.M.P.NOS.3758 & 3759 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : P.V. Sudakar |
| Fact of the Case: nput tax credit (ITC) denial – Suppliers’ registration cancelled for Period from 2017 to 2018: The petitioner-assessee challenges an assessment order whereby the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the assessee was reversed due to the cancellation of the GST registration of the relevant supplier with retrospective effect. The assessee contends that purchases made in 2017-2018 were supported by tax invoices, e-way bills, transport documents, and proof of payment to the supplier through regular banking channels. |
| Held by court : The reconsideration of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim should not lead to its rejection solely on the basis of the supplier’s GST registration being cancelled retrospectively. Disregarding the documents submitted by the assessee rendered the impugned assessment order unsustainable, necessitating its annulment and withdrawal. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Input tax credit reversal |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Demand | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Madras High court says assessment order issued to assessee set aside due to violation of natural justice principles.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Rainbow Stones (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) |
| Date of Judgment : 26-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.NO. 4510 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 4872 & 4875 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : Adithya Reddy |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee challenged the assessment order primarily on the ground of a violation of natural justice, contending that the order was unreasoned. The assessing officer merely referenced the reply to the show cause notice and noted that the reply was deemed unacceptable. |
| Held by court : The order lacked any explanation for disregarding the assessee’s response and for affirming the proposed imposition of tax, interest, and penalty. Hence, the challenged order, which was entirely devoid of reasoning, needed to be nullified, and the issue was remanded for reconsideration. Additionally, the revenue was instructed to afford the assessee a fair opportunity. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST Demand |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Natural Justice | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Madras High Court says the impunged order was to be annulled as Opportunity of personal hearing was not given.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Joshikaa Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 02-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.NO. 2299 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 2487, 2489 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : T.C. Prakash |
| Fact of the Case: The assessment order was issued on the basis of the assessee’s failure to respond to the show cause notice. The assessee argued that his GST practitioner, whom he had engaged, had been involved in an accident, and thus he was unaware of the intimation, show cause notice, and the subsequent order until he received a call regarding the outstanding amounts. The department maintained that both an intimation and show cause notice had been posted on the GST portal. The assessee contested the department’s order, asserting that he had not been given the chance for a personal hearing. |
| Held by court : The impugned order was issued due to the assessee’s failure to respond to the show cause notice. Based on the documents on record, it seemed that the assessee was not granted a personal hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was required to be nullified, and the matter was to be sent back for further review. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Natural Justice |
| Section of GST: Section 75 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST case law on Appeals to appellate authority | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Kerala High court says since there was a specific provision of appeal under section 107,writ petition could not be entertained
| High Court : Kerala High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Adam Traders vs. Deputy Commissioner |
| Date of Judgment :01-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : WP(C) NO. 3991 OF 2024 |
| Judges : DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J |
| Counsel Name : Aji V. Dev, Alan Priyadarshi Dev and S. Sajeevan |
| Fact of the Case: The appellate authority received appeals regarding the writ petition’s challenge to the rejection by the GST Department of the returns filed in Form GSTR-3B by the assessee for the period April 2017 to March 2018. |
| Held by court : There exists a specific provision for appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. When exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can only assess whether the order lacks jurisdiction, exhibits procedural impropriety, or contains an error apparent on the face of the record. None of the aforementioned conditions were present in the instant case. Consequently, the writ petition was to be rejected. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Penalty | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Allahabad High Court says the Adjudicating Authority should be instructed to grant the assessee an opportunity for a personal hearing.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : K. J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. |
| Date of Judgment :01-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 1544 OF 2022 |
| Judges : SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. |
| Counsel Name : Pranjal Shukla, |
| Fact of the Case:The petitioner was denied the opportunity for a personal hearing prior to the issuance of the order rejecting the reply to the show cause notice and imposing the penalty. Furthermore, the appeal against said order was also dismissed without affording the opportunity for a personal hearing. |
| Held by court : Wherever a written request is received from the individual liable for tax or penalty, or if there’s a potential adverse decision against them, the opportunity for a personal hearing should be provided. Even if no such request is received, if there’s a possibility of an adverse decision, the person must still be given the chance for a personal hearing. Any order made without granting this opportunity should be overturned. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Penalty |
| Section of GST: Section 73,74 & 75 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Registration | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Calcutta High court says the Competent Authority was to be directed to reinstate the registration of the assessee
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Sumanta Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal |
| Date of Judgment :05-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : WPA NO. 2158 OF 2024 |
| Judges : MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J. |
| Counsel Name : Himangshu Kumar Ray |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner stated that following the cancellation of its registration, it had settled all outstanding revenue dues. Additionally, they affirmed their commitment to paying any remaining revenue obligations necessary to reinstate their registration. |
| Held by court : Based on the arguments presented by both parties, the orders issued by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority were deemed invalid. Instead, the relevant authority was instructed to reinstate the assessee’s registration and open the portal for a 30-day period. During this time, the assessee would have 7 working days to settle any indicated revenue dues as required by the said authority. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017 |
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Madras High Court says instant writ petition was to be disposed of by directing revenue to consider assessee’s request to release blocked ITC in Electronic Credit ledger
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : T.T. Energies vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment :02-02-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.NO.2305 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name :Ravi Sharma and Ms. Saloni Shital |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner-assessee, involved in the trading of iron and steel articles, had their Input Tax Credit (ITC) blocked following an inspection of their supplier’s premises, where the suppliers were found to have obtained registration using fabricated documents. This action of blocking ITC had adversely affected the petitioner, leaving them unable to file returns while availing ITC. |
| Held by court :In order to verify the authenticity of transactions with the assessee’s suppliers, the assessee was obligated to provide documentation confirming the purchase and receipt of the relevant goods. The instant writ petition was to be resolved by instructing the revenue to review the assessee’s plea for the release of blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the Electronic Credit ledger. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article