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 January 2024 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of January 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 ITC Reversal| Recent GST Case laws 2024
Madras High court say the order was overturned as the department did not take the documents into account when making their decision.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : TVL.Cleon Optobiz (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 19-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO.495 OF 2024 W.M.P.NOS.510 & 512 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Rukmani Venugopalan |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, who is an assessee, received both an intimation and a show cause notice from the department regarding the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to fraudulent transactions during the period of 2020-21. Eventually, an order was issued that reversed the ITC previously claimed by the petitioner for purchases from entity ‘P’, on the grounds that ‘P’ did not exist and was not engaged in any business activities. The assessee argued that they should not be penalized solely because the GST registration of ‘P’ was retrospectively cancelled after the purchases were made. |
| Held by court : The assessee provided invoices, e-way bills, and bank statements as proof of payment to the department. However, the order in question incorrectly stated that the assessee did not submit the necessary documents as per Section 16. This finding was not valid. Additionally, the order did not notify the assessee that the goods they dealt with were different from those handled by their supplier, yet it made a conclusion on this matter. The order should be invalidated for not properly considering the documentary evidence provided by the assessee to demonstrate the legitimacy of the purchases, and the issue should be sent back for reevaluation. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : ITC Reversal |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Offence | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Delhi High Court says As the accused individuals were engaged in fraudulently acquiring Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 200 crores through fictitious transactions without actual purchases or sales of goods, the previously granted anticipatory bail to the accused individuals has been revoked.
| High Court : Delhi High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Directorate General of GST Intelligence vs. Chaman Goel |
| Date of Judgment : 19-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : CRL.M.C. NO. 2791, 2792 AND 6431 OF 2023 CRL. M.A. NOS. 10475, 10477 AND 24091 OF 2023 (STAY) |
| Judges : AMIT BANSAL, J. |
| Counsel Name : Satish Aggarwala, Anurag Ojha and Gagan Vaswani, |
| Fact of the Case: The accused persons are facing charges under Section 132 for their involvement in an offense related to Input Tax Credit fraud. The alleged fraudulent activity involves a manufacturer availing Input Tax Credit on the procurement of cigarettes, which were falsely represented as being used as raw material for the production of a ‘smoking mixture.’ Additionally, the Input Tax Credit was transferred from the manufacturer to an international exporter through the purported sale of the smoking mixture. |
| Held by court : Upon investigation, it was discovered that the premises of the supplier, M/s Radiant Traders, which purported to be a manufacturer of the exported smoking mixture, did not have any plant or machinery. Instead, it was identified as a small pan shop, with no business activity related to the export of smoking mixtures taking place there. Due to the accused persons’ involvement in fraudulently obtaining Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 200 crores through fictitious transactions without actual purchase or sale of goods, the previously granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons has been revoked. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Offence |
| Section of GST: Section 132 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Madras High Court says since refund application was made within period of limitation of two years prescribed by statute, appellate authority erred in concluding that refund claim can only be made with regard to a specific calendar month.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Tulip Nilgiris Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise (Appeals) |
| Date of Judgment : 22-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO.9063 OF 2021 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : G. Natarajan |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner-assessee exported processed tea without paying IGST by utilizing a letter of undertaking and subsequently sought a refund for unutilized input tax credit covering the period from July 2017 to November 2017. In the month of June 2018, the petitioner filed a refund claim and additionally claimed refunds for the period of July 2017 to November 2017 and the month of May 2018. While the claim related to June 2018 was accepted, the claims for May 2018 and July 2017 to November 2017 were denied. |
| Held by court : The refund claim was filed within the statutory limitation period as prescribed by the statute. The determination of such entitlement should not only be based on Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, in conjunction with Rule 89 but also involves an examination of relevant documents related to unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) and exports. The appellate authority’s conclusion that a refund claim can only be made concerning a specific calendar month contradicts both statutory provisions and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST, dated 15-3-2018. As a result, the challenged order is unsustainable and is hereby annulled. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Interest on Delayed payment of Tax | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Madras High Court says consistently deposit amount in electronic cash ledger within due date would not incurred any interest liability even if there was a delay in filing the monthly return in Form GSTR-3B, which was subsequently filed belatedly.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, Range-II |
| Date of Judgment : 23-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NOS.16866 & 22013 OF 2023 W.M.P. NO. 32200 OF 2023 |
| Judges : KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. |
| Counsel Name : Vijay Narayan and Raghavan Ramabadran |
| Fact of the Case: Interest is sought for the delayed payment of GST between July 2017 and December 2017, during which the assessee, having an accumulated CENVAT credit on the introduction of GST, faced challenges due to system unreadiness and technical glitches in the GST Common Portal. The Department extended the due dates for filing Form GST TRAN-1, leading the assessee to file it belatedly. Despite the inability to reflect the entire amount in the Electronic Credit Ledger, the assessee paid the tax dues in full within the stipulated dates, covering the GST liability for the period. Subsequently, the assessee was permitted to file returns after a delay of six years. However, interest is now demanded for the alleged belated payment of GST, asserting that depositing tax in the Electronic Cash Ledger does not qualify as the payment of tax and amounts to a failure to remit GST on time, thereby attracting interest liability. |
| Held by court : The assessee should not be held liable to pay interest on the GST amount routinely deposited into the Electronic Cash Ledger within the due date, as the tax amount had already been credited to the Government within the prescribed time limit. It should be emphasized that the crediting to the Government’s account would invariably occur no later than the last date for filing monthly returns, as stipulated in Section 39(7). Additionally, when an amount is paid by generating GST PMT-06, it is to be noted that the said amount would be promptly credited to the Government’s account upon deposit. At this point, the tax liability of a registered person is discharged to the extent of the deposit made to the Government. Subsequently, for accounting purposes only, it is deemed to be credited to the Electronic Cash Ledger, as explained in Explanation (a) to Section 49(11). Furthermore, as long as the GST collected by a registered person is credited to the Government’s account no later than the last date for filing monthly returns, the tax liability of that registered person is considered discharged from the date of crediting to the Government’s account. Any default in the payment of GST, even after the due date for filing monthly returns (on or before the 20th of every succeeding month), would lead to the registered person being liable to pay interest only for the delayed period, in accordance with Section 50(1). |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Interest on Delayed Payment of Tax |
| Section of GST: Section 50 ,section 39 & Section 49 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Appeal for mismatch between GSTR-2A & GSTR-3B | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Madras High Court says the writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner directing the assessee to pay taxes due.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Tvl. SKB Construction vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 02-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.NO. 36246 OF 2023 W.M.P. NOS. 36244, 36245 OF 2023 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : K.M. Malarmannan |
| Fact of the Case: A person who is dissatisfied with a decision or order made under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, State Goods and Services Tax Act, or Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority has the right to appeal to the prescribed authority. In a specific case where a taxpayer contested an order from the Assistant Commissioner (ST) instructing them to pay taxes and interest due to a supposed mismatch in input tax credit between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, and considering that the contested order could be appealed under the statutory process. |
| Held by court : A writ petition is to be resolved by allowing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner within ten days from receiving a copy of the order. This allowance is subject to the condition that 10% of the pre-deposit made by the petitioner will be credited to this appeal. |
| In favor of : Matter remanded |
| Topic of GST : Appeal for Mismatch between GSTR-2A & GSTR-3B |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Exemption | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Supreme court held that it could not entertain the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Paragraph 2 of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017
| High Court : Supreme Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Zonasha Estates and Projects vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment :02-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 1407 OF 2023 |
| Judges : MRS. B. V. NAGARATHNA AND AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sandeep Bagmar R., Suchitra Kumbhat, Abhinav Jain, Rajat Jain, Advs. and Vivek Jain, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, in filing a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, contested the constitutional validity of Paragraph 2 of Exemption Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, asserting that it is unconstitutional and beyond the powers conferred by the Constitution of India. |
| Held by court : The Supreme Court declined to entertain the immediate writ petition, thus directing its dismissal; however, the petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. |
| In favor of : |
| Topic of GST : Exemptions |
| Section of GST: Section 11 of CGST Act,2017 Article 32 and Article 226 of constitution of india |
GST Case law on Delay in filling Return | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Orissa High court orders to GST authorities to open the portal for assessee to file the GST Return.
| High Court : Orissa High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Rakesh Kumar Sethi vs. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax |
| Date of Judgment :02-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO.41639 OF 2023 |
| Judges : DR. B.R. SARANGI, CJ. AND MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J. |
| Counsel Name : Chittaranjan Das |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee requested the Authorities for a directive permitting the filing of Form GSTR-3B return for a specific period and urged them to review its application for the revocation of the cancellation of registration due to the delay in filing the return. |
| Held by court : The delay in submitting the application for the revocation of the cancellation of registration was to be forgiven, provided that the petitioner fulfilled all requirements, including payment of taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other dues, along with completing other formalities. The assessee was to be instructed to present a copy of the order to the proper officer, and upon the petitioner’s compliance with the aforementioned conditions, the proper officer could activate the portal to facilitate the filing of the GST return. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Delay in Filling Return |
| Section of GST: Section 39 of CGST Act,2017 & Rule 23 of CGST Rules,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Calcutta High Court says as the specific ground was not mentioned in the show-cause notice, necessitating the remand of the matter for fresh consideration.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Suchita Millenium Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment :02-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : M.A.T. NO. 1891 OF 2023 |
| Judges : T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ. AND SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Sandip Choraria, Vipul Kundalia, Amit Sharma, K.K. Maiti and Tapan Bhanja |
| Fact of the Case: The rejection of the refund claim for unutilized input tax credit by the GST authority, based on the grounds that the assessee did not indicate excess payment in either the monthly return (GSTR-3B) or the annual return (GSTR-9), was deemed a violation of the principles of natural justice as the specific ground was not mentioned in the show-cause notice |
| Held by court : The order rejecting the refund claim was to be set aside, and the matter was to be remanded back to the authority for a fresh consideration. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Blocking of ITC | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Allahabad High Court order to authority to verify the accurate facts from GSTN.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Amarnath Trading Co. vs. State of U.P. |
| Date of Judgment : 11-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 1367 OF 2023 |
| Judges : SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH AND MANJIVE SHUKLA, JJ |
| Counsel Name : Praveen Kumar |
| Fact of the Case: The department blocked the input tax credit of the assessee, alleging that the ITC was not genuine due to the non-existence of the supplier or selling dealer at the disclosed place of business. |
| Held by court : The supplier applied for an amendment to the core field in registration particulars, specifically changing the place of business from Hapur to Ghaziabad, which was duly recorded by GSTN; however, due to the time taken in processing the application for the change of address, the same might not have been known to the respondent authority when issuing the impugned order. Consequently, the assessee was to be instructed to submit an application to the respondent authority to recall the impugned order, citing the aforementioned facts and reasons, and the respondent authority was to verify the accurate information from GSTN and issue an appropriate and well-reasoned order. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Blocking of ITC |
| Section of GST: Section 17 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Payment of Taxes | Recent GST Case laws 2024
Calcutta High Court says assessee was to be given the opportunity to make the payment in 10 monthly installments.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgment 2024 |
| Name of case : Neel Kamal vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax |
| Date of Judgment :09-01-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.A. NO. 28930 OF 2023 |
| Judges : MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J. |
| Counsel Name : Sanjib Bandyopadhyay |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner-assessee requested the granting of an installment plan for making payments of the tax and interest in question, citing financial hardship. |
| Held by court : Taking into account the arguments presented in the present writ petition regarding the financial hardship of the assessee and the delay on the part of the GST authority in detecting the revenue mistake against the assessee, the writ petition was allowed, permitting the payment of tax dues and interest in question through ten equal installments. However, if there is a default in any of the installments within the granted time for payment, the order of installments would lose its effect, and GST authorities would be at liberty to proceed against the assessee in accordance with the law. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Payment of Taxes |
| Section of GST: Section 50 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article