The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws March 2025. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in March 2025 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of March 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 Clerical Error in GSTR-1.
Supreme Court says the issue required deeper examination.
| Supreme Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Union of India vs. Brij Systems Ltd |
| Date of Judgment : 24-03-2025 |
| Appeal No : SLP (CIVIL) Diary No. 6334 of 2025 |
| Judges : SANJIV KHANNA , CJI |
| Counsel Name : Raghavendra P. Shankar , A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker , AOR, Karan Lahiri , Aditya Dixit , Digvijay Dam and Ms. Misha Kumar |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, the assessee made a clerical mistake while filing GSTR-1 for the year 2017-18, which resulted in an excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC). To correct this error, the assessee filed an application to rectify the return, but the tax department rejected it, stating that the time limit for rectification had already passed, as per the rules under Sections 37(3) and 39(9) of the CGST Act. The assessee then approached the High Court through a writ petition, explaining that the mistake was unintentional and purely clerical. After considering the circumstances, the High Court allowed the assessee to make the correction in GSTR-1, despite the delay. However, the tax department challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that rectification beyond the time limit prescribed in the law was not legally permissible, and thus, the correction should not have been allowed. |
| Held by court : In this case, the tax department (Revenue) admitted that the mistake made by the assessee in filing the return was indeed a clerical error. However, they still argued that such mistakes could not be corrected after the time limit allowed by law had expired. The court noted that these types of clerical mistakes are common, especially when sellers file returns online, and often the mistake is only discovered later when the buyer is denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to the error. Given the seriousness and recurring nature of such issues, the court decided to hear the matter in more detail and said the case would be listed for further hearing. To get a better understanding and broader legal perspective, the court also decided to appoint an Amicus Curiae (a neutral legal expert) to assist the court in this case. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Return |
| Section of GST: Section 39 & Section 3 of CGST Act, 2017 |
GST Case law on Show Cause Notice Quashed due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Delay in Action
Calcutta High Court found that the show cause notice was issued without proper authority.
| Calcutta High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Kunjal Synergies (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX |
| Date of Judgment : 11-03-2025 |
| Appeal No : M.A.T. 2333 of 2023 IA No. CAN 1 of 2023 |
| Judges : T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ. CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J. |
| Counsel Name : Ankit Kanodia, Ms. Megha Agarwal and Jitesh Shaw |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, the assessee was earlier registered under the Service Tax and Central Excise regime and later migrated to the GST regime. They filed the TRAN-1 form to carry forward the closing balance of Cenvat credit from the old regime into the GST system. Even before filing TRAN-1, the assessee had voluntarily informed the Service Tax department during the 2015-16 audit that an amount of ₹41,55,632 of unutilized Cenvat credit was available and requested that it be allowed in the 2016-17 financial year. All necessary documents were submitted for verification.The department began the verification process in 2018, and there were multiple communications between the assessee and the department. The assessee responded promptly to each one. However, despite this, the department did not move forward by either issuing a proper show cause notice or concluding the verification. Then, after about four years, in 2023, the department suddenly issued a pre-show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01A. The assessee replied to this notice and challenged the department’s jurisdiction to investigate the TRAN-1 matter so late, especially when verification had already started in 2018 and no demand was raised during that time.The assessee argued that the fresh demand notice ignored their earlier objections and responses and that reviving the issue after four years of continuous communication was not a valid or fair action by the department. |
| Held by court : In this case, the assessee challenged the very jurisdiction (authority) of the department to issue a show cause notice under the CGST Act. Since the issue was about whether the department had the legal power to issue such a notice, the High Court held that the assessee was not restricted to using only the appeal process under the CGST Act. Instead, they were allowed to approach the High Court directly.The Court examined the matter and found that the show cause notice issued by the department was without proper jurisdiction. As a result, the High Court held that the earlier order passed by the Single Bench (in W.P.A. No. 23893 of 2023, dated 28-11-2023), which upheld the notice, needed to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned show cause notice was quashed (cancelled) by the High Court. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand |
| Section of GST: Section of CGST Act, 2017 |
Download PDF of Calcutta High Court Judgment of Kunjal Synergies (P.) Ltd
GST Case law on Revocation of GST Registration: Cancellation Allowed
Madras High Court allowed the registration to be restored, following a similar past judgment, but only if the taxpayer completes all legal formalities.
| Madras High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Palanichamy Alaguraja vs. Commercial tax Officer |
| Date of Judgment : 11-03-2025 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(MD) No. 6317 of 2025 |
| Judges : VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. |
| Counsel Name : N. Sudalaimuthu |
Fact of the Case: The GST department cancelled the registration of the petitioner (a business/assessee) because they didn’t file returns for over 6 months.The petitioner challenged this cancellation in court through a writ petition.The petitioner claimed:
|
Held by court : The court referred to an earlier case: Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, where
Applying the same logic, the court in the present case said:
|
| In favor of : Asssessee |
| Topic of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 29 & 30 of CGST Act, 2017 |
Download PDF of Madras High Court Judgement of Palanichamy Alaguraja
GST Case law on Detention of Goods for Non-Compliance
Allahabad High Court says no interference was required in the impugned order passed by the authorities.
| Allahabad High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Famus India vs. State of U.P. |
| Date of Judgment : 10-03-2025 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX No. -57 of 2021 |
| Judges : Piyush Agrawal, J. |
| Counsel Name : Pranjal Shukla, Parth Goswami, Amit Kumar Yadav |
| Fact of the Case: Regarding detention and seizure of goods and conveyances in transit during the Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee’s goods were intercepted while being transported without a proper invoice and based on an incomplete challan. The authorities noted a discrepancy as the place of unloading mentioned did not match the intended destination, which led to the issuance of a show cause notice. Subsequently, the goods were released through an order under section 129 of the CGST Act, imposing both tax and penalty. The assessee contested the order; however, the appeal was dismissed through the impugned order passed under section 129(3). The respondent authority contended that there was a clear contravention of Rule 45 and Rule 55 of the CGST Rules, which prescribe the conditions for transportation of goods without issuance of a tax invoice and mandate specific details and procedural compliance in case of goods sent for job work or otherwise under a delivery challan. The breach of these procedural requirements justified the detention and levy of penalty, as per the respondent’s submission. |
| Held by court : In this case, the goods were found at a location different from the one mentioned in the transport documents. After physical verification and detention, the assessee claimed that the goods were being sent for job work. However, as per Rule 45 and Rule 55 of the CGST Rules, when goods are sent for job work, a proper delivery challan must be issued with all required details. In this instance, the challan was incomplete and did not mention various details as required under Rule 55. Due to these deficiencies, the authorities acted under section 129 of the CGST Act, which deals with detention and release of goods in transit. Since there was non-compliance with the rules, the proceedings could not be considered arbitrary, and no interference was required in the impugned order passed by the authorities. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Detention and Seizure of goods & conveyance |
| Section of GST: Section 129 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Allahabad High Court judgement of Famus India
GST Case law on ITC Denial on Account of Incorrect GSTN Mentioned in Invoice
Delhi High Court says the impugned order disallowing the ITC on this basis was not justified and was liable to be set aside.
| Delhi High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : B Braun Medical India (P.) Ltd.vs.Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 12-03-2025 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) 114 of 2025 CM APPL. 434 of 2025 |
| Judges : PRATHIBA M. SINGH and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Tarun Gulati, Ms. Ashwini Chandrasekaran, Mahir Chablani and Devansh |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, a demand was raised against the assessee for excess claim of input tax credit (ITC) on the ground that the ITC was availed on invoices which mentioned an incorrect GSTN. The assessee explained that the supplier had inadvertently mentioned the GSTN and address of the assessee’s Bombay branch, instead of the Delhi GSTN under which the credit was actually claimed. The purchases were genuine, and the goods were received at the Delhi location, but due to the clerical error on the part of the supplier in reflecting the Bombay GSTN on the invoices, the department treated the ITC claim as ineligible. As a result, the impugned order created a demand against the assessee for wrongful availment of ITC. |
| Held by court : The only ground for rejecting the input tax credit (ITC) in this case was that the supplier had mistakenly mentioned the GSTN of the assessee’s Bombay office instead of the Delhi office, under which the ITC was actually claimed. The purchase of goods and receipt at the Delhi location was not disputed. This was clearly a clerical error on the part of the supplier, and there was no intention to evade tax or claim undue benefit. Denying credit solely on this technical ground would result in substantial financial loss to the assessee, despite the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the impugned order disallowing the ITC on this basis was not justified and was liable to be set aside. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand for excess claim of ITC |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Delhi High Court judgement on B Braun Medical India
