The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST new case laws June 2024. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in June 2024 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of June 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 Violation of Natural Justice
Bombay High Court Says the order passed against the assessee, without giving them a chance to reply to the Show Cause Notice, is canceled
| High Court :Bombay High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Aditya Steel Trading vs. Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 18-06-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 8418 OF 2024 |
| Judges : .K.R. SHRIRAM AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Sanket S. Bora, and Ms. Vidhi Punmiya, |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee argued that the order was unfair because it didn’t follow proper legal procedures.The Show Cause Notice mentioned documents that the assessee only received much later.The order was issued without allowing the assessee time to respond after getting these documents. |
| Held by court : The assessee couldn’t respond properly because they didn’t have the necessary documents. Because of this, the order is canceled.The case is sent back to be looked at again with proper procedures. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Demand & recovery |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Refund Claim Rejection Set Aside
Madras High Court says there was no excess payment but did not address the assessee’s detailed response & Because of this lack of proper reasoning, the rejection of the refund claim is canceled.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Manohar vs. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise |
| Date of Judgment : 11-06-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 13518 OF 2024 W.M.P. NO. 14669 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik and B. Sakthivel |
| Fact of the Case: The assessee wrongly claimed tax credits for CGST and SGST instead of IGST. After being informed of the mistake, the assessee made the necessary payments to correct it.The assessee then asked for a refund, including an extra payment made in July 2020. The tax authorities rejected the refund request without giving any reasons, even though they agreed the initial tax claim was incorrect. |
| Held by court :The tax authorities didn’t explain why the refund claim was not valid under Section 77(1). They also didn’t properly consider the assessee’s detailed explanation about the excess payment.Because of these issues, the rejection of the refund claim is canceled. The case is sent back for the authorities to re-evaluate the refund claim properly. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 & 77 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Remand for Re-Evaluation of E-Way Bill Requirement Based on Proper Determination of Transaction Value
Calcutta High Court says the case is being sent back to the appellate authority to re-evaluate the situation, taking into account the correct determination of the transaction value.
| High Court : Calcutta High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Gopal Nondy vs.Assistant Commissioner of State Tax |
| Date of Judgment : 13-06-2024 |
| Appeal No : WPA NO. 13141 OF 2024 |
| Judges : RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J. |
| Counsel Name : Arya Das and Amit Kumar Shaw |
| Fact of the Case: The case involves a proprietor who had a contract with Apex Auto Private Limited to perform job work on railway components. The proprietor received 22 pieces of consignment from Apex Auto and, after completing the job work, attempted to return them. During the return process, the vehicle carrying the consignment was stopped and the goods were detained because the documents were found to be defective and no e-way bill was produced. The proprietor paid a penalty as determined under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST law to have the consignment released. After the payment and release, the proprietor filed an appeal against the penalty, which was subsequently rejected.The proprietor argued that the consignment’s value did not exceed Rs. 50,000, and therefore, according to Rule 138, an e-way bill was not required for the movement of goods |
| Held by court : The value of the consignment should be calculated based on the actual transaction value as per Section 15.The initial officer and the appellate authority did not properly determine or consider this transaction value.Whether the e-way bill was necessary depends on this correct determination of the consignment’s value.The case is sent back to the appellate authority to re-examine the issue, and the proprietor must submit all relevant documents for this reassessment. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Detention of Goods And Conveyance |
| Section of GST: Section 139 & 15 of CGST Act,2017 wih Rule 138 of CGST Rules,2017 |
GST Case law on Cancellation of Registration and Principles of Natural Justice
Amdhra Pradesh High Court says the assessee could have used another method to address the cancellation issue but didn’t, the court didn’t grant their request in the writ petition.
| High Court : Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Suleman Scrap Merchants vs. Assistant Commissioner ST |
| Date of Judgment : 19-06-2024 |
| Appeal No : WRIT PETITION NO. 23446 OF 2023 |
| Judges : U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : V. Siddharth Reddy |
| Fact of the Case: The issue revolves around the cancellation of registration for an assessee (likely referring to a taxpayer or entity under GST). The competent authority issued a show cause notice proposing to cancel their registration. The reason given was that suppliers to this assessee claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actually supplying goods, and allegedly passed on this credit to the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted a detailed objection, disputing these allegations. They argued that the cancellation order violated principles of natural justice because they were not provided with the reports from GST authorities that formed the basis of the show cause notice. The assessee is arguing that they weren’t treated fairly because they didn’t get to see the evidence (reports from GST authorities) against them before the cancellation decision was made. This lack of access to information is seen as a violation of their rights to a fair process. |
| Held by court : The court didn’t find enough reason to support the assessee’s claim that their rights were violated. They decided not to grant the writ the assessee asked for. Instead, they allowed the assessee to either apply to reverse the cancellation under GST rules or appeal the cancellation order through the usual appeal process. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST: Section 29 & 30 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Fair Opportunity Granted to Contest Tax Demand Due to Lack of Proper Notification
Madras High Court says the petitioner should be given a chance to challenge the tax demand based on its merits.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Tvl. Rana Granites vs. Assistant Commissioner |
| Date of Judgment : 05-06-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 12078 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 13175 & 13176 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : A. Abdul Rahman |
| Fact of the Case: The case involves a dispute about a mismatch between two tax forms: GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. This mismatch led to a demand for payment and garnishee proceedings, where the authorities try to recover the owed amount directly from the debtor’s bank account or other assets. The petitioner (the person challenging the demand) argues that they were unaware of the entire process leading to the order being challenged. They claim that both the notice and the order were only uploaded to the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and were not communicated to them through any other means, such as mail or personal delivery. As a result, the petitioner did not receive proper notice and was unable to respond or address the issues before the garnishee proceedings were initiated in March 2024. |
| Held by court : Upon reviewing the contested order, it became evident that the tax demand was due to a discrepancy between the GSTR-3B returns (filed by the petitioner) and the auto-populated GSTR-2A (generated by the system). This tax demand was finalized because the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice (a notice asking them to explain or justify something). To ensure fairness, the court decided that the petitioner should be given a chance to challenge the tax demand based on its merits. However, the petitioner must meet certain conditions (referred to as “putting the petitioner on terms”). Therefore, the court decided to cancel the impugned order and send the case back for reconsideration. This means the petitioner will have an opportunity to present their case and contest the tax demand properly. |
| In favor of :Assessee |
| Topic of GST : |
| Section of GST: Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Address Tax Demand
Madras High court says the tax demand was due to the petitioner making an unintentional mistake while filling out the GSTR 3B form.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Tvl. Kwatra Karteek vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) |
| Date of Judgment : 06-06-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 12559 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 13709 & 13711 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : D. Vijayakumar |
| Fact of the Case: The tax demand in this case is due to a mistake in the GSTR 3B form related to the reverse charge mechanism (where the buyer pays the tax instead of the seller). The petitioner made an error while filling out the form. The petitioner was unaware of the proceedings because their part-time accountant did not inform them. The petitioner argues that if given a chance, they can prove that they did not underpay the GST. To ensure fairness, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the tax demand and correct the error. |
| Held by court : The contested order was canceled, and the petitioner will be given a fair chance to present their case. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Reverse charge Mechanism |
| Section of GST: Section of 9 & 74 CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Reduced Penalty for Wrongful ITC Availment Due to Lack of Fraud Evidence
Madras High court says Instead of the higher penalty that was initially imposed, a small token penalty of Rs.10,000/- was decided to be more appropriate.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals) |
| Date of Judgment : 11-06-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. (MD) NO. 26254 OF 2022 W.M.P. (MD) NOS. 20437 & 20438 OF 2022 |
| Judges : C. SARAVANAN, J. |
| Counsel Name : S. Ganesh |
| Fact of the Case: The taxpayer initially claimed ITC during the transition to GST but received a notice for allegedly claiming it incorrectly. The tax authorities then confirmed the penalties, but the taxpayer had already corrected the mistake by reversing the credit before any penalties were finalized. |
| Held by court : The court acknowledged that while the taxpayer claimed ineligible ITC, there was no evidence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing. Hence, only a small penalty was imposed as a precaution instead of a higher penalty. |
| In favor of : Partly in favour of assessee |
| Topic of GST : |
| Section of GST : Section 142 & 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case Law on High Court Denying Writ Petition for ITC Denial, Suggesting Regular Appeal Process
Madras High court says the taxpayer to use the standard appeal process instead of seeking a special court review.
| High Court : Madras High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : Vijay Impex vs. State Tax Officer |
| Date of Judgment : 04-06-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P. NO. 12226 OF 2024 WMP. NOS. 13315 & 13317 OF 2024 |
| Judges : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. |
| Counsel Name : K. Selvaraj |
| Fact of the Case: An assessee (the taxpayer) claimed input tax credit (ITC) for purchases made from a supplier. The taxpayer provided a certificate from the supplier to support the claim. However, the tax authorities denied the ITC on the grounds that the supplier had not filed their tax returns and had not paid the taxes. The taxpayer then filed a writ petition (a formal request to the court) to challenge the tax authorities’ decision to deny the ITC. In simpler terms, the taxpayer is asking the court to review and overturn the decision that denied them the tax credit because the supplier failed to meet their own tax obligations. |
| Held by court : The court dismissed the taxpayer’s writ petition. The court’s decision (impugned order) shows that the tax authorities did consider the taxpayer’s reply and the documents submitted, including the supplier’s certificate. Therefore, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice (fairness in legal procedures). The court explained that the reasons for rejecting the supplier’s certificate were provided in the decision. Since the taxpayer still has the option to appeal the decision through the proper legal channels (within the allowed time limit), the court decided not to use its writ jurisdiction (special powers to review decisions). In simple terms, the court said that the taxpayer’s case was properly reviewed by the tax authorities, and the taxpayer can still appeal the decision through regular legal procedures. Hence, there was no need for the court to intervene. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST Case law on Extension of ITC Time Limit to 30th November Retroactively | Recent GST Case laws 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that the time limit to avail ITC is 30th November in each financial year begining from F.Y.2017-18 till now.
| High Court : Kerala High Court Judgement 2024 |
| Name of case : M/S M.TRADE LINKS VS UNION OF INDIA |
| Date of Judgment : 04-06-2024 |
| Appeal No : W.P(C) Nos. 31559/2019, 25891/2020, 26515/2021,5995/2022,21545/2022, 27854/2022, 24327/2022, 36612/2022, 24677/2023, 37039/2023] |
| Judges : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH |
| Counsel Name : SMT.MEERA V.MENON |
| Fact of the Case: The case involved challenges related to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws in India. The court considered difficulties faced during the initial implementation of GST, especially regarding filing returns and claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioners argued for certain benefits and clarifications under GST laws. |
| Held by court : The court held that the petitioners could benefit from specific Circulars issued by the government to address genuine claims and mistakes made during the early years of GST. It also extended the deadline for filing September returns to November 30th, recognizing the challenges faced by dealers and taxpayers during GST’s initial stages. Overall, the judgment favored the petitioners by allowing them to claim benefits under the mentioned Circulars and providing flexibility with return filing deadlines. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Inpu Tax credit |
| Section of GST: Section 16 of CGST Act,2017 |
Read similar article
