The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws November 2024. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in November 2024 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of November 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 Premature Writ Petition Against Show Cause Notice Dismiss due to non reply
Rajasthan High Court indicated that the legal process should be followed before seeking judicial intervention.
| Rajasthan High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Baba Minerals vs. Union Of India |
| Date of Judgment : 22-11-2024 |
| Appeal No : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14894 of 2024 |
| Judges : Avneesh Jhingan and Ashutosh Kumar, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ravi Gupta, |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, the tax department issued a show cause notice to a business (the assessee), accusing it of generating fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) through cash transactions and fake invoices. The assessee challenged this notice by filing a writ petition in court, asking for the notice to be canceled. The main argument of the assessee was about jurisdiction, meaning which tax authority had the legal power to issue the notice. The assessee claimed that its business fell under the State tax authority’s jurisdiction, not the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGSTI). Therefore, the Deputy Director of DGGSTI could not legally act as the Adjudicating Authority to issue the notice. The court would have to decide whether the DGGSTI had the authority to issue the notice or if it was issued outside its jurisdiction. The term “premature writ petition” means the court might also consider whether the petition was filed too early, possibly before the tax authorities completed their investigation or passed any final order. |
| Held by court :The assessee filed a writ petition in court to challenge the show cause notice issued by the DGGSTI, arguing that the DGGSTI did not have the legal authority (jurisdiction) to issue it. However, the assessee filed the petition before submitting a reply to the show cause notice. The court decided that since the assessee had not yet responded to the notice or allowed the tax authorities to consider its arguments, the petition was premature. In legal terms, the court expects the assessee to first respond to the notice and follow the proper legal process before approaching the court. Since the challenge was only against the notice itself and not against any final decision, the court dismissed the petition as it was filed too early. The assessee could still raise the jurisdiction issue while replying to the notice. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Show Cause Notice |
| Section of GST: Section 2(4) with Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Rajasthan High Court Judgement of M/s Baba Minerals
GST Case laws on Applicability of Section 65 Audit Provisions After GST Registration Cancellation
Bombay High Court says Cancellation of registration does not exempt them from being audited for their past business activities.
| Bombay High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : LJ- Victoria Properties (P.) Ltd. vs Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 19-11-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION (L) NO.34267 OF 2024 |
| Judges : M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Mahesh Raichandani and Jasmine Dixit |
| Fact of the Case: A business was registered under GST and operated for three years. Later, the business closed, and the owner applied to cancel the GST registration, which was approved by the authorities. However, as per Section 29(3) of the GST Act, even after cancellation, the person remains responsible for any obligations under the GST Act or its Rules.In this case, a preliminary audit revealed that the business had underreported its income, leading to a short payment of taxes. The authorities initiated audit proceedings under Section 65(5). The owner argued that since the business had been deregistered, the audit provisions no longer applied. However, the court clarified that the GST Act allows for an audit to be conducted for any financial year during which the person was registered, even if their registration has since been cancelled. |
| Held by court : The owner could not avoid the audit by claiming deregistration, as the obligations under Section 65 remain applicable for the relevant period when the business was registered. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 65 & Section 29 of CGST Act,2017 & Rule 101 of CGST Rules ,2017 |
Download Bombay High Court judgement of LJ Victoria Properties Pvt Ltd
GST Case Laws on Bail in GST Fraud Case Due to Lack of Conclusive Evidence
Rajasthan High Court Decided to grant the bail to the accused.
| Rajasthan High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Manoj Kumar Jain vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 06-11-2024 |
| Appeal No : S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4191 of 2024 |
| Judges : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. |
| Counsel Name : Brahmanand Sandhu, Parth Sarthi Sandhu and Akash Mathurm f |
| Fact of the Case: The accused was charged with issuing fake invoices in the names of nine firms, allegedly resulting in GST evasion through wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. However, the tax authorities only stated that the proprietors of these firms were untraceable but did not conclusively establish, after proper verification, that the firms were non-existent or fake. Moreover, the GST registrations of these firms were not canceled. The accused was alleged to have received 1% of the taxable value of the fake invoices, while another individual received 2%. The investigation against this other person was incomplete, and no charges had been filed against them. There was also no evidence on record about who claimed ITC or how much was claimed based on these invoices. The maximum punishment for the charges was five years, but the accused had already spent over seven months in custody. |
| Held by court : The offenses the accused was charged with were not very severe under the law. They could be settled (compoundable) by paying a fine or fulfilling legal conditions and would be handled by a Magistrate. Since the trial was expected to take a long time, the court decided to release the accused on bail. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Bail on Arrest |
| Section of GST: Section 69 & 132 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download Rajasthan High Court Judgement of Manoj kumar Jain
GST Case Laws on Tax and Penalty Imposed Without Evidence of Tax Evasion to be Refunded
Allahabad High Court says he order imposing the tax and penalty was set aside, and the authorities were instructed to refund any tax or penalty amount already paid.
| Allahabad High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Banaras Industries vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 07-11-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT TAX No. – 897 of 2022 |
| Judges : Piyush Agrawal, J. |
| Counsel Name : Aditya Gupta and Harsh Vardhan Gupta |
| Fact of the Case: Goods and the vehicle carrying them were stopped and detained because the required e-way bill was not initially shown. However, the e-way bill was presented before the authorities issued a formal seizure order. Additionally, there was no evidence or finding to suggest that the detention was due to an attempt to evade taxes. |
| Held by court : The authorities did not provide any specific reason to suggest that the goods were being transported with the intention of evading tax. Without evidence of tax evasion, the tax and penalty imposed could not be justified. As a result, the order imposing the tax and penalty was set aside, and the authorities were instructed to refund any tax or penalty amount already paid. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Detention of goods and conveyance in transit |
| Section of GST: Section 129 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download Allahabad High Court Judgement on Banaras Industries
