The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST new case laws July 2024. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in July 2024 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of July 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 Input Tax Credit Discrepancies
Madras High Court allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the discrepancies between the turnover reported in Form GSTR 2A and the taxable turnover declared in Form GSTR 3B.
| Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Tvl. KRV Super Market vs. Government of India |
| Date of Judgment : 22-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (MD) NO. 12420 OF 2024 W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 11062 and 11064 of 2024 |
| Judges : C. Saravanan, J. |
| Counsel Name : E.V.N. Siva |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee faced discrepancies between the turnover reported in Form GSTR 2A and the taxable turnover declared in Form GSTR 3B. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer because the notices were only available on the GST Common Portal, and as a Proprietary Concern, they missed these notifications. The assessee requested an opportunity to explain the discrepancies, stating that part of the turnover in Form GSTR 2A related to the acquisition of items for setting up a supermarket and did not entirely pertain to them. Therefore, the assessee asked for a chance to clarify these discrepancies. |
| Held by court : Given the assessee’s submissions, the case was sent back to the Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) for a fresh order. This decision was subject to the condition that the assessee deposits 10% of the disputed tax amount from their Electronic Cash Register. This will allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the discrepancies between the turnover reported in Form GSTR 2A and the taxable turnover declared in Form GSTR 3B. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Input tax credit |
| Section of GST: Section 38 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Show Cause Notice for GST Non-Payment
The Supreme Court decided not to interfere with that ruling, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
| Supreme Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : SN Jyoti Associates (P.) Ltd. vs. Intelligence Officer, DG GST Intelligence |
| Date of Judgment : 26-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 16129 OF 2024 |
| Judges : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Gaurav Agrawal, Manoranjan Paikaray, Dusmanta Kumar Pradhan, Rishi Pal Singh, Ms. Vinakshi Kadan |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner-assessee challenged a High Court order that dismissed their request for certified copies of documents related to a search and seizure operation. The assessee sought these copies, including the search warrant and order sheet/note sheet, to address a show cause notice from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for alleged non-payment of GST on Works Contract Services. The High Court found that the show cause notice was issued in accordance with the law and thus denied the request for the certified documents. |
| Held by court : The court did not want to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Therefore, the current Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Search & Seizure |
| Section of GST: Section 67 & 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Improper Categorization of Show Cause Notice Leads to Lack of Service
Bombay High Court says the notice was uploaded on the portal under the category of ‘Additional Notices’ instead of ‘Notices’. As a result, the notice was not easily accessible.
| Delhi High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Kamla Vohra vs Sales Tax Officer |
| Date of Judgment : 10-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P.(C) NO. 9261 OF 2024 CM APPL. No. 37933 of 2024 (Stay) |
| Judges : Vibhu Bakhru AND Sachin Datta, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sumit K. Batra, Manish Khurana, Ms. Priyanka Jindal and Nikhin Alex |
| Fact of the Case: A show cause notice (SCN) was issued to the assessee under Section 79 of the CGST Act. However, this notice was uploaded on the portal under the category of ‘Additional Notices’ instead of ‘Notices’. As a result, the notice was not easily accessible. Because of this, the assessee did not receive the notice and was unaware of it. Consequently, the assessee did not file a reply or appear before the concerned authorities. |
| Held by court : Uploading notices under the heading ‘Additional Notices’ does not meet the requirements for properly serving a notice as specified in Section 169 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the issued order based on this improperly served notice must be cancelled. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Show cause notice |
| Section of GST: Section169 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail for Summons
Supreme court says the High Court did not make a mistake in cancelling the bail, and the current special leave petition (a request to review the High Court’s decision) was dismissed.
| Supreme Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Bharat Bhushan vs. Director General of GST Intelligence |
| Date of Judgment : 05-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8525 of 2024 |
| Judges : J.B. PARDIWALA and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Rajiv Malhotra, Shubham Bhalla, AOR and Rohit Pandey |
| Fact of the Case: In a recent case, the non-applicant was summoned under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, on allegations of running fake firms and generating fake E-way bills. The high court referred to the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer 2023 . In this judgment, it was established that if a person is summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act for the purpose of recording their statement, the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relate to anticipatory bail, cannot be applied. As a result, the high court cancelled the anticipatory bail that had been granted to the applicant by the trial court. This means that the applicant could not seek protection from arrest in advance (anticipatory bail) if they were summoned for investigation under the mentioned section of the CGST Act. |
| Held by court : The High Court acted correctly in cancelling the anticipatory bail that the trial court had granted. Therefore, the current special leave petition (a request for the Supreme Court to review the High Court’s decision) was dismissed, meaning there was no further need to pursue this petition. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Investigations & Bail |
| Section of GST: Section 69 of CGST Rules,2017 |
GST Case law on Expiry of Input Tax Credit Blocking Period
Bombay High Court says the restriction should no longer be in effect. Consequently, the order to block the credit must be set aside.
| Bombay High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Seya Industries Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra |
| Date of Judgment : 15-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 8095 OF 2023 |
| Judges : K.R. SHRIRAM AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Prakash Shah, Suyog Bhare and Durgaprasad Poojari |
| Fact of the Case: The Department of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) issued a show cause notice to a business (the assessee) alleging that they had claimed an inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC). In response, the DGGI blocked a substantial amount of the business’s ITC from their Electronic Credit Ledger and even created a negative balance, altogether affecting an amount of Rs. 1,06,53,97,454 (over 106 crore rupees). The business has challenged this blocking action by filing a petition, arguing that the DGGI’s decision to block such a large amount of their ITC is unjustified and should be reviewed. |
| Held by court : Rule 86A allows the Commissioner or an authorized officer to block the use of a certain amount of credit in a business’s electronic credit ledger. This means the business cannot use this blocked credit to pay off any tax liabilities or claim refunds on any unused amounts. According to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A, this blocking of credit can only last for one year from the date it was imposed. In this case, the restriction was imposed on November 23, 2022, and the one-year period ended on November 23, 2023. Therefore, the blocking period has expired, and the restriction should no longer be in effect. Consequently, the order to block the credit must be set aside. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Utilisation of Credit ledger |
| Section of GST: Rule 86Aof CGST Rules,2017 |
GST Case law on GST on Long Term Leasehold Right
Gujarat High Court says case was directed to be heard with pending Special Civil Application
| Gujarat High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Mahaveer Warehousing and Logistics vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 12-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11346 OF 2023 |
| Judges : BHARGAV D. KARIA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. Palak Kshatriya and Hardik V. Vora |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner received a notice from the respondent authority asking why GST should not be applied to their transaction of assigning a long-term leasehold right under the provisions of the CGST Act. The petitioner mentioned that a similar issue is already under review in the court as part of Special Civil Application No. 11345 of 2023. |
| Held by court : The petitioner received a notice from the authorities asking why GST should not be applied to their transaction of assigning a long-term leasehold right under the CGST Act. The petitioner pointed out that a similar issue is already being reviewed in the court under Special Civil Application No. 11345 of 2023. Considering this, the case was directed to be heard together with the pending application. Additionally, it was decided that no further action should be taken based on the show-cause notice until the court makes a decision. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Levy of GST |
| Section of GST: Section 9 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Dispute Over Change in GST Rate for Construction Contract
Allahabad High Court says the taxpayer was instructed to submit a new request to the Joint Commissioner of CGST
| Allahabad High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Rajendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. |
| Date of Judgment : 03-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT – C NO. 19178 OF 2024 |
| Judges : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI AND PRASHANT KUMAR, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Bidhan Chandra Rai |
| Fact of the Case: The taxpayer was awarded a contract by UPEIDA to construct a four-lane road. The contract price included all duties and taxes except GST. The work was supposed to be completed by December 9, 2021, but the deadline was extended to June 30, 2022, and the final payment, including 12% GST, was approved on November 30, 2022. However, the GST rate increased from 12% to 18% starting August 3, 2022. The taxpayer asked UPEIDA to pay the additional 6% GST, but UPEIDA refused. The taxpayer argued that UPEIDA’s refusal to pay the revised GST rate was unfair and illegal. UPEIDA stated that it had no objection if the court sent the matter to the Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE to examine the issue according to the law. |
| Held by court : The taxpayer was instructed to submit a new request to the Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE, who will review and decide on the matter strictly according to the law. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Change in Tax Rate |
| Section of GST: Section 14 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case laws on Cancellation of Registration Orders Quashed
Gujarat High Court says the case was sent back to the assessing officer to issue a new show cause notice with all required reasons and details.
| Gujarat High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Shokinbhai Gaphurji Sankhala vs.Commercial Tax Officer |
| Date of Judgment : 03-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8153 OF 2024 |
| Judges : BHARGAV D. KARIA AND NIRAL R. MEHTA, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Aayog Y. Doshi, Abhishekkumar C. Malvi, Maulik Vakhariya and Tanaya G. Shah |
| Fact of the Case: The taxpayer challenged the show cause notice, the cancellation of their registration, and the order from the appellate authority that upheld the cancellation. The appellate authority dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal based on timing issues (limitation). The taxpayer argued that the cancellation order was issued without providing any reasons for the cancellation. This lack of explanation and proper hearing violates natural justice principles. |
| Held by court : In the case of Aggrawal Dyeing & Printing v. State of Gujarat, it was decided that show cause notices and orders for cancellation of registration must be provided in a physical form, containing all necessary details and should be sent to the dealer by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). Following this decision, the disputed orders from the appellate authority and assessing officer were to be canceled. The case was sent back to the assessing officer to issue a new show cause notice that includes all necessary reasons and details. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 29 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Tax Demand Order Set Aside Due to Lack of Hearing
Madras High Court says the taxpayer should be given an opportunity to contest the tax demand on its merits.
| Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Kayen Q Source vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 02-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 16293 OF 2024 W.M.P.NOS.17830 & 17831 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : S. Ramamurthy |
| Fact of the Case: A show cause notice was issued to the taxpayer because there was a mismatch between their GSTR 3B return and GSTR 1 return, as well as between their GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. However, an order was issued without giving the taxpayer a fair chance to contest the tax demand. The taxpayer was unaware of the proceedings because all communications were only uploaded on the GST portal and not sent through any other means. This lack of proper communication and opportunity to respond is considered a violation of natural justice. |
| Held by court : The tax demand was confirmed without giving the taxpayer a chance to be heard. To ensure fairness, the taxpayer should be given an opportunity to contest the tax demand on its merits. Therefore, the tax demand order is to be set aside on the condition that the taxpayer pays 10 percent of the disputed tax amount. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Returns |
| Section of GST: Section 39 with section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Show Cause Notices Invalidated Due to Amalgamation
Karnataka High court says proceedings and notices issued to the now non-existent company are invalid and should be dismissed.
| Karnataka High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Trelleborg India (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka |
| Date of Judgment : 02-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NOS. 19662 OF 2022 (T-RES), 24110 & 25531 OF 2023 (T-RES), 1928 & 15620 OF 2024 (T-RES) |
| Judges : S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J |
| Counsel Name : Prasad Paranjape and Bharath Janarthanan |
| Fact of the Case: In this case, Trelleborg Sealing Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. merged with another company to form a new entity called Trelleborg India Pvt. Ltd. This merger was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on June 13, 2017. Following the merger, Trelleborg Sealing Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. ceased to exist, and the new company, Trelleborg India Pvt. Ltd., came into existence. The registration of the old company was officially canceled on January 3, 2021, effective from November 29, 2021. Despite this, the new company, Trelleborg India Pvt. Ltd., received tax notices in Form GST DRC-01 for the years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, between September 4, 2022, and May 18, 2024. Trelleborg India Pvt. Ltd. challenged these notices, arguing that they were issued to the old, non-existent company, Trelleborg Sealing Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., and therefore, should be considered invalid. |
| Held by court : Once a company merges and no longer exists due to an approved Scheme of Amalgamation, any ongoing legal or tax proceedings against the now non-existent company cannot continue. Therefore, any show cause notices issued to the dissolved company must be canceled and set aside. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Liability in case of amalgamation of Comapanies |
| Section of GST: Section 87 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case Law on Tax Demand Issued Without Fair Hearing Violates Natural Justice
Madras High Court decided that the taxpayer should be allowed to contest the tax demand. Therefore, the tax demand order was canceled.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Skyrams Outdoor Advertisings India (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
| Date of Judgment : 01-07-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 16085 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 17596 TO 17598 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : P. Rajkumar |
| Fact of the Case: Sure, here’s a simplified explanation: A taxpayer was notified by the tax authorities about a mismatch between two of their GST returns (GSTR 3B and GSTR 1) and another mismatch between their GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated GSTR 2A return. The authorities issued a tax demand based on these mismatches. However, the authorities did not give the taxpayer a fair chance to dispute the tax demand. The taxpayer was not aware of the entire process leading to the final tax assessment because all communications were only uploaded on the GST portal and were not sent through any other means (like email or postal mail). In other words, the tax authorities made a decision about the taxpayer’s liability without properly informing them or giving them a reasonable opportunity to respond. This is considered a violation of the principle of natural justice, which ensures that a person has a fair chance to present their case before a decision is made. |
| Held by court : The tax authorities confirmed the tax demand without giving the taxpayer a chance to present their side of the story. To ensure fairness, the court decided that the taxpayer should be given an opportunity to challenge the tax demand on its merits. However, the court also required the taxpayer to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for setting aside the original tax demand order. This means the tax demand order was canceled, but the taxpayer must first pay 10% of the disputed amount to proceed with their challenge. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Return |
| Section of GST: Section 39 Read with Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article
