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 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
