The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws December 2024. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in December 2024 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of December 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 Failure to Grant Personal Hearing Before Passing Assessment Order
Allahabad High Court says everyone should be given a fair opportunity to present their side before a decision is made.
| Allahabad High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner Corporate Circle |
| Date of Judgment : 02-12-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX No. – 1958 of 2024 |
| Judges : Arun Bhansali, CJ. and Kshitij Shailendra, J. |
| Counsel Name : Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Vivek Sarin and Divyanshi Singh |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, the tax department issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 25-5-2024 under section 73 for tax or ITC issues without involving fraud. The assessee was asked to submit a reply by 25-6-2024. However, the notice did not mention any date, time, or venue for a personal hearing, as it showed “NA” (Not Applicable) in those fields. |
| Held by court : The show cause notice issued to the assessee clearly showed that the Assessing Authority had no intention of granting a personal hearing, as the relevant column in the notice was marked “NA” (Not Applicable). However, when the assessee filed a reply using Form GST DRC-06, it selected “Yes” for the personal hearing option and requested a hearing in the reply before any final decision was made. Despite this, the tax authorities ignored the request and passed the assessment order on 6-8-2024, the same day the reply was submitted, without granting a personal hearing. This action violated the principles of natural justice, which require that a person must be given a fair chance to present their case before any adverse decision is made. Therefore, the assessment order dated 6-8-2024 could not be legally upheld and was considered invalid. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
Downlaod PDF of Allahabad High Court Judgement of M/s Gannon Dunkerley Co Limited
GST Case law on Illegal Arrest Due to Non-Compliance with Section 69(2) of CGST Act.
Delhi high Court decided to cancel the order that had sent him to Jail.
| Delhi High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Kshitij Ghildiyal vs. Director General of GST Intelligence, Delhi |
| Date of Judgment : 16-12-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(CRL) No.3770 of 2024 |
| Judges : Anish Dayal, J. |
| Counsel Name : Maninder Singh,Bobby C., Pulkit Verma, Akhil Gupta, Ms. Sanjana Nair, Gurjass Singh Puri, Rohit Kheriwal and Nishant Nain |
| Fact of the Case: A company involved in managing e-waste was investigated by tax authorities for possible tax fraud. The investigation, conducted under Section 67 of the GST Act, took place at the company’s office in Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. During the search, the authorities claimed to have found unrecorded stock. The company’s owner was arrested because the tax department believed he had claimed fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) using fake invoices, which is a violation of Section 132(1)(c) of the GST Act. After the arrest, the owner was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and sent to jail for 13 days. However, the owner argued that he was not given a written explanation of the reasons for his arrest, which is required under Section 69(2) of the GST Act. He also stated that he was held at the tax department’s office from November 28 to November 30, 2024, without proper legal procedures being followed. |
| Held by court : The company owner argued that his arrest was illegal because the authorities did not provide him with a written explanation of why he was being arrested. This violated his rights under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and Section 69(2) of the CGST Act, which clearly state that a person must be informed of the reasons for their arrest in writing. Courts in the past have ruled that giving written reasons for arrest is mandatory and cannot be ignored.The investigation also revealed irregularities in how the tax authorities handled the case. Some official summonses had backdated signatures, and there were delays in generating Document Identification Numbers (DINs), which are important for tracking official paperwork. Additionally, the owner’s claim that he was held by the tax authorities from November 28 to November 30, 2024, without proper documents or legal procedures, was found to be true.Since the correct arrest procedures – including providing written reasons and proper communication – were not followed, the arrest was declared illegal. As a result, the court decided to cancel the order that had sent the owner to jail. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Offence |
| Section of GST: Section 132 & 69 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Delhi High Court Judgement of Kshitij Ghildiyal
GST Case law on Eligible for Input Tax Credit (ITC)
Delhu High Court says telecommunication towers are considered movable property. therefore they qualify for Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST laws.
| Delhi High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals-1. |
| Date of Judgment : 12-12-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) Nos. 13211, 14710 & 16477 of 2024 |
| Judges :Yashwant Varma and GIRISH KATHPALIA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sujit Ghosh,Kumar Visalaksh, Udit Jain, Ms. Akansha Dikshit, V. Lakshmikumaran, Yogendra Aldak, Sumit Khadaria |
| Fact of the Case:The Supreme Court has ruled that telecommunication towers are not considered immovable property. This decision was made in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2024). The Court explained that telecommunication towers do not meet the requirements to be classified as immovable because:
Even though telecommunication towers are specifically excluded from the definition of “plant and machinery” in tax laws, this does not mean they should be treated as immovable property. When general legal principles about immovable property are applied, it becomes clear that these towers are movable assets. |
| Held by court : As a result, telecommunication towers do not fall under the restriction in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, which blocks input tax credit (ITC) for immovable property. Therefore, denying ITC on telecommunication towers is not legally justified. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 17 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Delhi high Court Judgement of Bharti Airtel Limited
GST Case law on Revocation of GST Registration
Orissa High Court says the delay can be excused on payment of outstanding Tax interest and Penalty.
| Orissa High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Maa Tarini Enterprises vs.Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 04-12-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) No.29928 of 2024 |
| Judges : Arindam Sinha and M.S. Sahoo, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Abhilash Mishra |
| Fact of the Case: The tax department canceled the assessee’s registration after issuing a show cause notice. However, the assessee was willing and ready to pay the tax, interest, and penalty to resolve the issue. |
| Held by court :In a similar case, Mohanty Enterprises v. Commissioner CT ,the court allowed the delay in applying for revocation of registration cancellation, as long as the assessee paid the tax, interest, and penalty. Following this precedent, the court decided that the same approach should apply in this case. The assessee was granted relief, allowing the cancellation of registration to be revoked, provided the required payments were made. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 30 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Orissa High Court Judgement of Maa Tarini Enterprise
GST Case law on Stay on Recovery Proceedings Due to Non-Constitution of Appellate Tribunal
Madhya Pradesh high Court ruled that no recovery actions should be taken against the assessee.
| Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Bum Bum Corporation vs. State of Madhya Pradesh |
| Date of Judgment : 06-12-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION No. 33962 of 2024 |
| Judges : Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vinay Saraf, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Mukesh Agrawal and Ayush Gupta, |
| Fact of the Case:The tax department started proceedings under Section 74 against the assessee for the period 2018-19, resulting in a tax demand of Rs. 38.93 lakh. The assessee challenged this demand before the Appellate Authority, which reduced the tax liability to Rs. 14.69 lakh. The assessee wanted to appeal this revised demand to the Appellate Tribunal, but the Tribunal was not yet functioning. Meanwhile, the tax department blocked the assessee’s electronic credit ledger and froze their bank account to recover the amount. The assessee requested relief from these actions and expressed willingness to pay the required pre-deposit to proceed with the appeal. |
| Held by court : |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeal to Appellate Tribunal |
| Section of GST: Section 112 of CGST Act,2017 |
Downlaod PDF of Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgement on Bum Bum Corporation
GST Case law on Dismissal of Writ Petition Due to Non-Appearance at Personal Hearing
Bombay High Court dismissed the petition and directed the assessee to file an appeal through the proper process if they wanted to challenge the decision.
| Bombay High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Finorion Pharma India (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra |
| Date of Judgment : 10-12-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 3672 of 2024 |
| Judges : M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Shantilal Jain, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Prakash Shah and Mihir Deshmukh, |
| Fact of the Case:The tax department issued a show cause notice to the assessee and scheduled a personal hearing. The assessee requested a 10-day extension to respond, which was allowed. Later, the assessee asked for certain documents, which were provided. After receiving the documents, the assessee requested another 7 days to reply, but during this time, the tax department passed an order rejecting the assessee’s refund claim. The assessee challenged this decision, arguing that the tax department violated principles of natural justice by not giving enough time to respond properly before rejecting the refund. |
| Held by court : Even though the assessee could have filed an appeal through the normal process, they chose to file a petition instead.The court found that the assessee was given enough opportunities to attend the personal hearing but did not take advantage of them. Because of this, the assessee cannot claim that their rights to fair process were violated.The court dismissed the petition but allowed the assessee to still appeal the decision through the proper channels. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 & 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
