The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws January 2025. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in January 2025 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of January 2025 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 Demand against the Employee of the company
Supreme Court found no reason to interfear with the order of High Court.
| Supreme Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Union of India v/s Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari |
| Date of Judgment : 24-01-2025 |
| Appeal No : SLP (Civil) Diary No. 55427/2024 |
| Judges : Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan |
| Counsel Name : N. Venkataraman,Gurmeet Singh Makker, V.C Bharathi, Prasanjeet Mahapatra, Megha Karnwal, Udai Khanna,Shantanu Sharma |
| Fact of the Case: A foreign shipping company (Maersk) had GST registration in India but no employees or permanent establishment in India. It appointed a Taxation Manager from its group company in India as its Power of Attorney (PoA) holder to represent it before tax authorities. The Department alleged that Maersk had wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and evaded tax through short levy. Since Maersk had no employees in India, the Taxation Manager (PoA holder) of the Indian group company was issued a Demand cum Show Cause Notice under Section 74 read with Sections 122(1A) and 137(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.The demand was for ₹3,731 crore in penalties. The employee (PoA holder) challenged the demand before the Bombay High Court. The High Court quashed the demand on the following grounds Section 122(1A) applies only to a ‘taxable person’ as per Section 2(107). The employee was not a taxable person, so the penalty was invalid.Section 74 (related to tax demand) is not a penal provision, whereas Section 137 is penal in nature. The two cannot be clubbed in the same notice. No evidence existed to prove that the employee personally benefitted from the alleged tax evasion. The GST Department filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Bombay High Court’s decision.The case was heard by the Supreme Court on 24.01.2025 |
Held by court : The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court’s decision and quashed the demand against the employee. It held that:
|
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand & Recovery |
| Section of GST: Section 74 , Section 122(1),Section 137(1) of CGST Act,2017 |
Downlaod PDF of Supreme Court Judgement of Union of India vs SHANTANU SANJAY HUNDEKARI
GST Case law on No GST on Transfer of Leasehold Rights in Land
Gujarat High Court has ruled that transfer of leasehold rights in land is not subject to GST.
| Gujarat High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry & Ors VS UOI & Ors |
| Date of Judgment : 03-01-2025 |
| Appeal No : R/Special Civil Application No 11345 of 2023 |
| Judges : BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA |
| Counsel Name : Mr.S.N.Soparkar, Mr.Monal Davawala and others |
| Fact of the Case:The Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) provides industrial plots on a 99-year lease to support industrial growth. Recently, tax authorities tried to impose GST on the transfer of these leasehold rights, which raised concerns among MSMEs and business groups. They argued that this tax burden could harm industrial development. As a result, the Gujarat High Court, in the case of Suyog Dye Chemie Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, issued a stay order, temporarily stopping the GST demand on such lease transfers until the matter is fully examined. |
| Held by court :The Gujarat High Court ruled that transferring or assigning leasehold rights along with land and buildings amounts to the transfer of immovable property. Permanently assigning leasehold rights to a third party does not qualify as a “lease” under Section 7, read with Entry 2(a) of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017. As a result, such transactions are not subject to GST. Additionally, land-related transactions are clearly excluded from GST under Entry 5 of Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Sale or Transfer of Leasehold Rights in industrial land |
| Section of GST: Schedule III of CGST Act ,2017 |
Download PDF of Guajrat High Court Judgement of Gujarat Chambers of Commerce & Industry
GST Case laws on Relief in Corporate Guarantee
Bombay High Court stayed GST on corporate guarantees by parent companies to subsidiaries under Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST.
| Bombay High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Vedanta Limited VS Union of India . |
| Date of Judgment : 08-01-2025 |
| Appeal No : WP No 4519 of 2024 |
| Judges : B.P Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Rohan Shah, Kumar Visalaksh, Ajitesh Dayal Singh, Ginita Bodani, Rahul Khurana, Mohammed Anjajwalla. |
| Fact of the Case:Vedanta Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the classification of corporate guarantees as a supply of service under Schedule I of the CGST Act, even without consideration. Vedanta argues that valuing such guarantees at 1% of the guaranteed amount is excessive and burdensome, discouraging companies from protecting their investments. The company contends that providing a corporate guarantee is merely safeguarding investments and does not constitute a supply under the CGST Act or Article 246A of the Constitution. Vedanta also challenges the circular and Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and beyond legal authority. |
| Held by court : The High Court stayed the enforcement of Item No. 2 in the circular, which clarifies the taxability of corporate guarantees as a supply of service. It also permitted Vedanta to amend its petition to challenge the retrospective amendment of Rule 28(2) and Circular No. 225/19/2024-GST. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : GST on Corporate Gurantee |
| Section of GST: Circular No 225/19/2024 Read with Rule 28(2) of CGST Rules,2017 |
Download Bombay High Court Judgement of Vedanta Limited
GST Case law on Schedule III Argument Ignored in CGST Decision on Land Transfer
Bombay High court says the case must be sent back for re-examination and a fresh decision that properly considers the taxpayer’s argument.
| Bombay High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Panacea Biotec Ltd. vs.Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 21-01-2025 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO.13587 OF 2024 |
| Judges : B.P. COLABAWALLA and FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Abhishek Rastogi, Pooja Rastogi, Meenal Songire and Arya More |
| Fact of the Case: Assessee transfered land and building to another party through a “Deed of Assignment”. The GST authorities issued show cause notice dated 16-07-2024 to the assessee, claiming that GST was applicable on this transaction. subsequently they passed an order on 19-08-2024 confirming the GST liability.The assessee argued that this type of transaction—transferring land and a building—is not considered a “supply of goods or services” under GST.Specifically, they referred to Item 5 of Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017, which states that the “sale of land and, subject to certain conditions, sale of a building” is neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. This means such transactions are outside the scope of GST. The assessee also clarified that the transaction does not fall under Item 2 of Schedule II, which treats certain transactions involving buildings (e.g., renting or leasing) as a supply of services. |
| Held by court : The court set aside the impugned order because it was flawed—specifically, it did not address the key arguments of the assessee.The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication, meaning the GST authorities were directed to reconsider the case and issue a new decision. This new decision must properly address the assessee’s contention about whether the transaction falls under Item 5 of Schedule III (and thus is not taxable under GST). |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Supply |
| Section of GST: Section 7 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Bombay High Court Judgement of Panacea Biotec Ltd.
GST Case law on No Penalties Under Section 129 if Taxes are Paid
Delhi High Court says the procedural error should not attract penalties.
| Delhi High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Kamal Envirotech (P.) Ltd. vs.Commissioner of GST |
| Date of Judgment : 17-01-2025 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) 12142 of 2022 |
| Judges : Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Abhas Mishra, Keane Sardinha and Sumit Saini |
| Fact of the Case: This case involves the detention of goods during transit because of technical defects in the e-way bill. Specifically, the Part-B section of the e-way bill (which contains details like the vehicle number) was either incomplete or missing. Despite this issue, it was not disputed that all applicable taxes on the goods had already been paid. The tax authorities argued that even if there was no intent to commit fraud, evade taxes, or act with any dishonest intention (mens rea), a demand for tax would still be valid under the law if the transportation of goods violated any provision of the GST Act.The key question in the appeal is whether the authorities can impose a penalty or tax demand when there is no fraudulent intent, but technical non-compliance with the law has occurred. |
| Held by court : The court concluded that penalties under Section 129 cannot be imposed merely for procedural errors like an incomplete e-way bill if taxes have been paid and there is no fraudulent intent or negligence. This approach ensures fairness and aligns with the principles of Section 126. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Detained and Seized during transit |
| Section of GST: Section 129 read with section 126 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Delhi High Court Judgement of Kamal Envirotech Pvt Limited
GST Case laws on Refund of unutilised ITC.
Gujarat High Court says classification was incorrect and directed the authorities to process the petitioner’s refund claim.
| Gujarat High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Infodesk India (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 02-01-2025 |
| Appeal No : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25609 of 2022 R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 138 of 2023 |
| Judges : BHARGAV D. KARIA and D.N. Ray, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Anand Nainawati |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner, a wholly-owned subsidiary of InfoDesk Inc., USA, provides software consultancy, IT support, and related services exclusively for its parent company under a service agreement. It classified these services as “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, and sought a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis that the services qualified as zero-rated exports. However, the tax authorities denied the refund, arguing that the services were not “exports” but instead fell under the definition of “intermediary services” as per Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. This reclassification by the authorities excluded the services from being considered as exports, thus denying the refund claim for unutilized ITC. The dispute revolves around whether the services provided genuinely qualify as “export of services” or as “intermediary services. |
| Held by court : The petitioner provided services directly to its parent company on a principal-to-principal basis, with compensation structured as a cost-plus arrangement (cost incurred plus an 8% markup), reflecting an independent contractual relationship. The service agreement explicitly stated that the petitioner provided these services on its own account, rather than acting as an intermediary facilitating transactions between third parties. As a result, the petitioner’s services qualified as “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, as the payments were received in foreign exchange, and the place of supply was outside India. The tax authorities had erroneously classified these services as “intermediary services,” which led to the denial of the refund claim for unutilized ITC. The court held that this classification was incorrect and directed the authorities to process the petitioner’s refund claim. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Gujarat High Court judgement of Infodesk Idia Pvt Limited
