The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws August 2024. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in August 2024 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of August 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 Tax demand due to Cess
Delhi High Court says the case was sent back (remanded) to the adjudicating authority for a new review.
| Delhi High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Bhagirath Mutha and Co. vs. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 22-08-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (C) NO. 11593 OF 2024 CM APPL. NOS. 48184 and 48185 OF 2024 |
| Judges : Vibhu Bakhru AND Sachin Datta, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Rakesh Kumar, Praveen Kumar Gambhir and Dilip Kumar Srivastava, Rajeev Aggarwal, Rakesh Kumar, R. Ramachandran, Harpreet Singh, Rahul Kumar Sharma, Shubham Kumar, Ms. Suhani Mathur,Jatin Kumar Gaur |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, the taxpayer (assessee) challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act and the subsequent order based on that notice. The taxpayer argued that the order was invalid because a significant part of the tax demand was due to cess (a form of tax), but they only dealt with dry fruits, which are not subject to this cess.The authorities agreed that the taxpayer should be given another chance to respond to the show cause notice. In simple terms, the taxpayer is getting an additional opportunity to explain their side and why they believe the tax demand is incorrect, particularly regarding the cess that they believe does not apply to their goods. |
| Held by court : Given the submissions made, the existing order was canceled (set aside), and the case was sent back (remanded) to the adjudicating authority for a new review. This means the tax authorities will reconsider the case from the beginning, taking into account the taxpayer’s explanation and any new evidence they provide. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download Delhi High Court Judgement of Bhagirath Mutha and Co.
GST Case law on Tax Determination Under Section 73 Reconsidered Due to Amendments in section 16.
Calcutta High Court ordered the authorities to look at the case again, considering the new rules and the payments already made by the taxpayer.
| Calcutta High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : North Land Construction vs. State of West Bengal |
| Date of Judgment : 20-08-2024 |
| Appeal No : WPA NO. 19054 OF 2024 |
| Judges : Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. |
| Counsel Name : Promit Majumdar, Uzma Ali |
| Fact of the Case: The taxpayer had filed a return on July 31, 2019, for the tax period covering February and March 2018. Based on this, the tax authorities made a tax determination under Section 73 of the CGST Act. They even attached the taxpayer’s bank account to recover the tax. Most of the tax liability was already recovered from the taxpayer’s electronic credit ledger, leaving only ₹61,078 outstanding.The taxpayer pointed out that Section 16 of the CGST Act had been amended. With the addition of sub-sections (5) and (6), registered taxpayers were allowed to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) in their returns filed under Section 39 of the CGST Act up to November 30, 2021, for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21. This means taxpayers could claim ITC for past periods up to that extended deadline.Given this amendment, the tax authorities agreed that the case needed to be reviewed again to take into account the new provisions, which could potentially benefit the taxpayer by allowing them to claim ITC they might have missed earlier. |
| Held by court : Because of the amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act and the fact that ₹1,73,174 was already recovered from the taxpayer’s electronic credit ledger, the notice that froze the taxpayer’s bank account was canceled (set aside). The case was then sent back for review. This means the authorities will take a fresh look at the situation, considering the updated rules and the amount already recovered from the taxpayer’s account. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download Calcutta High Court Judgement of North Land Construction
GST Case law on Application of Refund Without Waiting for Adjudication
Delhi High Court says petitioner can pursue a refund right away using the proper legal procedures.
| Delhi High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Aimlay (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Delhi West |
| Date of Judgment : 20-08-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (C) NO. 4273 OF 2024 CM NO. 17509 OF 2024 |
| Judges : Vibhu Bakhru AND Sachin Datta, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Jitin Singhal, Ms. Mansi Jain |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioners (the company and its directors) requested a refund of the money they claim was forced to be deposited during a search and seizure raid by the GST authorities. They argued that a GST officer pressured the company’s director to go to the bank, withdraw money from his personal bank account, and deposit it into the company’s account. When asked why the GST officer had to accompany the director to the bank, the authorities replied that the officer went along to submit a letter to the bank. This letter was needed to help the director withdraw money because the directors’ bank accounts had been frozen (attached) by the authorities.The tax authorities also mentioned that the money was deposited not during the search and seizure itself, but after the director’s statement had been recorded. In other words, they claimed that the deposit was a separate action that took place after the formal search process was completed. |
| Held by court : The challan (payment receipt) showed that the deposit was marked as a voluntary payment. Because there were disputes about this issue, the court decided not to order a refund of the deposit in this particular case. However, the petitioners (the company and its directors) are allowed to apply for a refund through the proper legal channels without having to wait for the outcome of the ongoing investigation (show cause notice). This means they can request the refund following the standard legal process while the case is still being reviewed. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Inspection, Search and seizure |
| Section of GST: Section 67 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Delhi high Court Judgement of Aimlay (P.) Ltd
GST Case law on Right to Appeal
Calcutta High Court says the appeal should be allowed to proceed without any further payment.
| Calcutta High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Parmar Sandip Chamanbhai vs.State of West Bengal |
| Date of Judgment : 12-08-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.A. NO. 15339 OF 2024 |
| Judges : Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Sweta Mukherjee, Rituraj Chakraborty |
| Fact of the Case: The taxpayer had their goods seized while in transit and challenged the order issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. On August 10, 2023, the court allowed the taxpayer to appeal this order to a higher authority (appellate authority). However, they were required to first pay ₹10 lakhs and provide proof of this payment, along with a bank guarantee for the remaining penalty amount. By doing this, the taxpayer was able to secure the release of their seized goods. Now, the taxpayer is requesting the court to change its earlier order from August 10, 2023. They claim that the authorities are not accepting their appeal because they haven’t made the pre-deposit (initial mandatory payment required for filing an appeal). In simple terms, the taxpayer is asking the court to modify the previous order to help them proceed with the appeal process. |
| Held by court : Once the taxpayer paid ₹10 lakhs and provided a bank guarantee as required by the court’s order from August 10, 2023, they gained the full right to file an appeal. This right to appeal became official and could not be taken away. The tax authorities could not demand any additional payment under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act to allow the appeal. Therefore, the appeal should be heard and decided based on its merits, without imposing any further financial conditions on the taxpayer. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to Appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 107(6) and Section 129(3) of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Calcutta High Court judgement of Parmar Sandip Chamanbhai
GST Case law on Refund Claim Rejection Upheld
Punjab and Haryana Court says since the appeal process was a suitable way to address the issue, the court decided not to intervene directly.
| Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : GEA Westfalia Separator India (P.) Ltd. vs State of Haryana |
| Date of Judgment : 09-08-2024 |
| Appeal No : CWP No. 19296 of 2024 |
| Judges : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and SANJAY VASHISTH, J.J. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Shubhangi Gupta, Ms. Priyanka Rathi, Ashwini Chandrasekaran, |
| Fact of the Case: The taxpayer filed a refund claim for the period of 2017-18, but it was rejected. The taxpayer argued that the rejection was made in a very brief manner, with just a one-line order. They felt that the authorities did not properly review or consider the detailed reply they had submitted before rejecting the refund claim. |
| Held by court : The authorities pointed out that the rejection of the refund was not as simple as the taxpayer claimed. There was a detailed order explaining the reasons for the rejection, including specific deficiencies in the refund claim. These deficiencies were communicated to the taxpayer, but they failed to correct them.The taxpayer had the option to appeal this decision through the proper legal process but chose not to do so. Instead, they directly approached the court. Since there is a specific process available for appeals, the court advised the taxpayer to use this appeal process instead. As a result, the court decided to dismiss the current petition. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement of GEA Westfalia Separator India (P) Ltd
GST Case law on Detention of goods and vehicles due to bonafide mistake
Allahabad High Court says Since the mistake was unintentional and there was no intent to evade tax,the order detaining the vehicle and goods should be cancelled and set aside.
| High Court : Allahabad High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Kumar Cargo Solution vs. State of U.P |
| Date of Judgment : 01-08-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX NO. 1201 OF 2024 |
| Judges : Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Arjit Gupta and Naveen Chandra Gupta |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner-assessee filed an instant writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The revenue issued a contested order in the form of MOV-09, which resulted in the detention of the assessee’s vehicle and the goods it was transporting. The detention was justified by a genuine error and there was no intention to evade tax. |
| Held by court : Penalties cannot be levied in cases where there is no purpose or mens rea to evade taxes. In this particular case, all documents were given at the moment of seizure, with the exception of one e-invoice that was downloaded that same day. As a result, the case’s factual matrix did not support the purpose to dodge taxes, and the contested order directing revenue to release the car and items had to be set aside. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Detention of goods and conveyances |
| Section of GST: Section 129 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download Allahabad High Court Judgement of M/s Kumar Cargo Solution
GST Case law on Invalid Seizure of cash and Silver Bars
Supreme Court says since the cash and silver bars were not connected to any evasion, their seizure was not valid.
| High Court : Supreme Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Commissioner of CGST vs.Deepak Khandelwal |
| Date of Judgment : 14-08-2024 |
| Appeal No : S.L.P. (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 31886 OF 2024 |
| Judges : ABHAY S. OKA AND Augustine George Masih, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : N. Venkatraman, Gurmeet Singh Makker,V. C. Bharathi, Adv., H. R. Rao, Udai khanna, Santosh Kumar, |
| Fact of the Case: In the relevant case, the High Court decided that although other kinds of moveable assets discovered during a search may theoretically fit the definition of “goods” under the CGST Act, they could not be seized unless they directly connected to the supply of goods and any tax avoidance. Documents, books, or other objects may only be taken, the court added said, if they were required to support any judicial actions under the Act. Once they became superfluous, these objects needed to be returned. In this particular instance, the seizure of silver bars and money was not justifiable as it was motivated by the assertion that they were unrecorded riches. But Section 67 of the CGST Act serves to enable authorities to expose tax evasion rather than to reclaim unaccounted money. The court decided that the confiscated money and silver need to be released to their owner since they were not included in any later legal notifications. The tax officials subsequently challenged this ruling via a Special Leave Petition (SLP). |
| Held by court : The judgement was challenged by the Revenue through the filing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP). Nevertheless, the Revenue’s SLP was dismissed, as there was no valid reason under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the High Court’s decision. This implies that the court did not identify any justification for revoking or challenging the previous judgement; consequently, the petition was denied.The judgement was challenged by the Revenue through the filing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP). Nevertheless, the Revenue’s SLP was dismissed, as there was no valid reason under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the High Court’s decision |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Search and seizure |
| Section of GST: Section 67 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download Supreme Court Judgement of Commissioner of CGST VS Deepak Khandelwal
GST Case law on Grant of Bail in Tax Evasion
Punjab and Haryana High Court decided that the assessee should be released on regular bail.
| High Court : Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Vishal Chauhan vs.Haryana State GST (Intelligence Unit) |
| Date of Judgment : 14-08-2024 |
| Appeal No : CRM-M-37860 OF 2024 (O & M) |
| Judges : Manisha Batra, J. |
| Counsel Name : Rana Gurtej Singh and Nikhil Goyal |
| Fact of the Case: Assessee was engaged in business of trading iron scrap and also purchase the same from different dealers. On the examination of GST returns by authorities, they found suspicious activities and wrongfully claimed ITC of Rs.12,48,671 by showing Fake purchases. So assessee was arrested based on the orders from commissioner of state tax. Then assesse applied for Bail u/s 439 of the criminal procedure code. |
| Held by court : Assessee was in custody since 20-02-2024 and had no prior criminal record. he had a permanent adobe and there was no likelihood of assessee fleeting from country as he was ready to surrender his passport also. The trial against him was expected to take time and authorities had not yet finalized the exact amount of tax liabilities as show cause notice issued u/s 74(1) was still pending for adjudication. If no tax evasion was found, there would be no criminal liability.The court decided that the assessee should be released on regular bail. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Bail |
Section of GST: Section 132 & 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement of Vishal Chauhan
