The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws 2022. All latest latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in December 2022 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of December 2022 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 filling of return|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
Kerala HC orders to file all defaulted returns with in prescribed time limit
| High Court: Kerala high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : 2 B Trade link VS The Assistant Commissioner |
| Date of Judgment : : 22-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : WPC No 30901 of 2022 |
| Judges : : GOPINATH P. |
| Counsel Name : Sri. Abraham David, Aji V.Dev, Alan Priyadarshi Dev, S.Sajeevan |
| Fact of the Case: Registration cancelled due to non-filling of return for the period of Six months. Petitioner had not file any appeal u/s 107 for order of cancellation. The Petitioner also did not file any application for revocation of the order of cancellation with in time prescribed u/s 30 of the CGST/SGST Act. |
| Held by court : The petitioner will be required to file all defaulted returns together with tax, late fee, interest, penalty etc., within a period of two weeks from the date on which the registration of the petitioner is restored in compliance with this judgment Recent GST Case Laws 2022 |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : Registration |
| Section of GST : Section 29 or 30 of CGST Act |
GST case laws pdf
GST Case law on Refund of IGST in case of Export|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
Gujarat HC agrees to pay the refund of IGST with Interest @ 6% with all consequential benefits
gst refund case laws
| High Court: Gujarat high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Aartos International LLP (Formerly Azuvi International LLP) VS Deputy Commissioner Customs |
| Date of Judgment : 02-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Special Civil application No.14649 of 2022 |
| Judges : MS.Sonia Gokani , Mrs. Manua M Bhatt |
| Counsel Name : : MR. Hardik V Vora (7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR Nikunt K Raval (5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner exported the goods in the month of February and March 2020 and shipping bills along with GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 submitted. Out of three export invoices, the refund has been received of IGST paid at the time of export of Rs.20.45 Lakh (rounded of). On three invoices being invoice Nos.E54/2019-20, E67/2019-20 and E68/2019-20 dated 08.03.2020 and the duty drawback of all the three invoices also had been received on 27.02.2020 and 04.04.2020. The petitioner since did not receive the refund of the IGST paid on export invoice No.E54/2019-20 dated 06.02.2020 of Rs.19, 94,994/-. It had attempted to approach the department. As there is a portal of Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance (‘the CPGRAMS’ hereinafter) on 14.02.2022, however for two months, there was no response. The matter was disposed on 13.05.2022 gst judgement till date |
| Held by court : The petition is ALLOWED. Let the refund of IGST be paid for the amount of Rs.19, 94,994/- with interest at the rate of 6% and with all consequential benefits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : : Refund of IGST in case of Export |
| Section of GST : Section 15 & 16 of IGST Act, 2017 along with Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017. Section 54(6) of CGST Act, 2017 & Section 91(2) of CGST Rules, 2017. |
GST case laws PDF
GST Case law on Search and seizure Operation
Delhi HC orders to complete proceedings expeditiously u/s 130 of CGST Act, 2017
Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : ARJ Exim India VS Assistant Commissioner CGST |
| Date of Judgment : 16-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition 14000/2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Vibhu Bakhru , Mr.Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Ramakant Gaur, Ms. Sneha Arya, Ms. Prerana Agarwal, Ms. Harshi Gaur and Ms. Gauri Chauhan, Advocates |
| Fact of the Case: Search and seizure operations were conducted on the premises of the petitioners on 29.12.2020 and 30.12.2020. It is stated that on 30.12.2020, 375 boxes / cartons were seized from the premises. One of the principal allegations made against the petitioners is that they had fraudulently availed input tax credit. The petitioners also sought cross-examination of certain officers of the DGCI and other witnesses as mentioned in the present petition. |
| Held by court : : The adjudicating authority is requested to complete the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four months from today. The adjudicating authority shall consider and dispose of the petition’s application for cross examination of witnesses/officers in accordance with law gst landmark judgements |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Search and seizure operations |
| Section of GST : Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017 |
Latest GST case laws PDF
GST Case law on Input tax Credit
Allahabad High Court Judgment on GST 2022
High Court modifies earlier order and directs First appellate authority to get complete information from assesse with in prescribed time limit.
gst case laws on itc
| High Court: Allahabad high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/S Ashish Trading Company |
| Date of Judgment : 06-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Tax No. 228 of 2021, Writ Tax No.229 of 2021, Writ Tax No.230 of 2021, and 231 of 2021 |
| Judges : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J |
| Counsel Name : Pranjal Shukla |
| Fact of the Case: petitioner is a proprietorship firm and engaged in a business of purchasing and selling of empty tin boxes. The petitioner’s firm is registered with the taxing authority under Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 2017’). The disputes relates to the assessment year 2019-20. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.12.2019 under Section 74 of the Act. The petitioner replied the show cause notice online. The first Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 20.10.2020 dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that the firm which had supplied the goods to the petitioner’s firm, i.e. M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises, Agra, its registration was already cancelled and moreover the petitioner has not mentioned any amount for loading and unloading of the goods. |
| Held by court : The Court finds that the finding recorded by the first Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded to the first Appellate Authority to record specific finding as to when the registration of supplier i.e. M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises, Agra was cancelled. Moreover, the first Appellate Authority shall record as to when the inquiry was conducted as to whether any business activity was carried out by the supplier firm. The said exercise shall be completed by the first Appellate Authority within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. |
| In favor of : Partly in favor of assesse |
| Concept of GST : Input Tax credit |
| Section of GST : Section 16 & 74 of CGST Act, 2017 |
PDF of latest GST case laws
GST Case law on E-way bill
GST case law on Intercepting Truck under E-way Bill Rules
Recent GST Case Laws 2022
High Court has given Liberty to appeal manually or online to raise issue before the appellate authority.
| High Court: Jharkhand high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/s. Burnpur Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd VS State of Jharkhand |
| Date of Judgment : 21-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition No. 3651 of 2021 |
| Judges : Mr. Deepak Roshan |
| Counsel Name : M/s. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Adv, Ms. SidhiJalan, Adv. Mr. Naveen Toppo, Adv. Mr. ShubhamChoudhary, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Safalta, Adv. |
| Fact of the Case: The truck was intercepted by the Officers of Investigation Bureau, during the investigation it was found that the E-way bill had expired and statement of the truck driver was recorded, the Petitioner Company deemed to be the owner of the goods. However, the Petitioner Company being a dealer registered outside State of Jharkhand would have to temporarily register itself in the name of driver in the State of Jharkhand for further proceedings. the Petitioner Company paid the entire demand of tax and penalty for release of goods and the vehicle after which an order in Form GST MOV-05 was issued, directing the release of vehicle and goods contained therein. Without providing any opportunity of hearing on the date fixed i.e. 08.09.2021, an order of demand and penalty has been passed u/s 129(3) of the Act in Form GST MOV 09 in a mechanical manner and in the name of the truck driver. On the ground of there being no evasion of tax and no contravention of Section 129(3) of the Act the proceeding has been initiated against the truck driver, but since the truck driver is not registered as a dealer and the payment was made by the Petitioner Company, hence, the company has chosen to file the present writ petition being an aggrieved party. |
| Held by court : : Liberty granting to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under Form GST MOV 09. On his approaching, the State Taxes Officer, Intelligence Bureau, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad shall provide the GSTIN number so that the petitioner can prefer an appeal online. In case the appeal is not accepted online for any technical reasons, he would be at liberty to prefer an appeal manually before the appellate authority. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of facts & law and the grounds available to it in the appeal which shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Intercepting of Truck under E-way Bill Rules |
| Section of GST : Rule 138, CGST Act Rules, 2017. |
latest judgment on gst PDF
GST Case law on Principal of Natural Justice
High Court has given Liberty to appeal manually or online to raise issue before the appellate authority
latest gst judgements|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Patna high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/s Cement House VS The Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 09-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15680 of 2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Partha Sarthy |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate |
| Fact of the Case: This petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 06.03.2021 and 06.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 6 namely The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Saharsa Circle, Sahara in Reference No. 1820 and Reference No. ZD100221005021T respectively as also summary of order dated 06.02.2021 passed in GST DRC-07 for the period 2019-20. The order is ex parte in nature. |
| Held by court : : HC held that the order is bad in law. For two reason (a) Violation of Principal of natural justice. Fair opportunity of hearing (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any reasons sufficient even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assesse. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : : Principal of Natural Justice & Order ex parte and DRC-07 |
| Section of GST : FORM DRC-07 and Rule 100 of CGST Rules, 2017 |
latest gst judgements PDF
GST Case Law on registration|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
GST case law related to Cancellation of GST registration
High Court allow to file Revocation of cancellation of GST Registration
| High Court: Uttarakhand high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Devendra Prasad VS Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax. |
| Date of Judgment : 16-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3263 of 2022 |
| Judges : Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Ravi Sehgal,, Mr. Rohit Arora, Mr. Tarun Lakhera, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner has an alternative forum of filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of GST with the further condition that the petitioner must file appropriate returns for the six months, in which he failed to upload in the portal of the GST Department as per the relevant rules. gst case laws on registration |
| Held by court : Since, the petitioner failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months and show cause notice has been sent to him, it is directed that the petitioner shall file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act in terms of Rule 23 of the CGST Rules. Though it is time barred, we are inclined to wave the limitation and direct the petitioner to file an application for reviving of G.S.T. registration before the Revenue within a period of 21 days, hence. He shall also comply the other provisions of Section 30 of the Uttarakhand GST Act that is submission of returns for the defaulted six months and any further completed months after the revocation. In such case, if dues are found to be due from the petitioner and he pays the same, then his case shall be considered liberally by the revenue and shall be disposed of within a period of 30 days. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. latest judgment under gst |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : GST Registration |
| Section of GST : Section 30 of CGST Act Read with Rule 23 of CGST Rules, 2017 |
latest judgment under gst PDF
GST Case law on Search and Seizure
GST authority can retain seized goods for maximum period of four and half years
GST latest judgment
Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Dhruv Krishan Maggu VS Principal Director General |
| Date of Judgment : 12-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition No 7517/2020 |
| Judges : Prathiba M Singh |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Akhil Krishnan Maggu, Advocate |
| Fact of the Case: The Petitioner e seeks return of his laptop, computer, documents and other things which were seized by the Respondents / Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) in a search conducted on 28th August, 2019 vide panchnama dated 28th August, 2019. |
| Held by court : As per Section 67(3), if the documents, books or things are not being relied upon for the issuance of notice under the CGST Act, 2017, the same are supposed to be returned within a period not exceeding thirty days from the issue of the said notice. Thus, by a conjoint reading of sections 67(2) second proviso, 67(3), 74(2), 74(10) the ‘documents or book or things’ can be retained for a maximum period of four and half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of erroneous refund. In the present case, the said period had not yet lapsed. Accordingly, at this stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to direct release of the computer, laptop, documents and other things seized vide punchnama dated 28th August, 2019. latest gst case laws |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : Search & Seizure |
| Section of GST : Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
GST latest judgment PDF
GST Case law on e way bill related to Truck detain
High court says liberty given to petitioner to file appeal manually before appellate authority
free gst case laws
| High Court: Jharkhand high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/s GMT Industries Ltd. VS State of Jharkhand |
| Date of Judgment : 21-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition Tax No. 1846 of 2021 |
| Judges : Mr. Deepak Roshan |
| Counsel Name : M/s. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Adv. Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Adv. Mr. Naveen Toppo, Adv. Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Safalta, Adv. |
| Fact of the Case: How an Officer of the State Taxes could carry out the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act that too, when he is not the proper Officer under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, 2. Tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 13, 68,000/- has been imposed on the ground that E-way Bill had been cancelled during transit without any finding of evasion of tax, which otherwise is also beyond jurisdiction. 3. Consequently, the amount deposited by the petitioner company for the purpose of release of truck be directed to be refunded to the Petitioner |
| Held by court : : Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under Form GST MOV 09. On his approaching, the State Taxes Officer, Intelligence Bureau, Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur shall provide the GSTIN number so that the petitioner can prefer an appeal online. In case the appeal is not accepted online for any technical reasons, he would be at liberty to prefer an appeal manually before the appellate authority. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of facts & law and the grounds available to it in the appeal which shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. famous gst case laws |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : GST Registration & E-way Bill |
| Section of GST : Rule 138 of CGST Rules,2017 |
free gst case laws pdf
GST Case law on Reimbursement of additional tax liability in Pre GST regime
High court allows to take refund of additional GST liability in Pre GST regime
gst case laws digest
| High Court: Chhattisgarh high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/s Gordhandas Gobindram VS State of Chhattisgarh |
| Date of Judgment : 20-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition No.5471 of 2022 |
| Judges : P. Sam Koshy |
| Counsel Name : Mr.Harsh Wardhan, Advocate |
| Fact of the Case: This petition has been filed by M/s Gordhandas Gobindram (“the Petitioner”), who was awarded a contract/work order by the Public Works Department, Raipur (“the Respondent”) prior to the introduction of GST law. The Petitioner on account of the introduction of new GST law was required to pay certain additional tax liability, which the Petitioner now intends to get it refunded from the Respondent. The Petitioner submitted that the Respondent itself has taken a policy decision vide order dated October 10, 2018 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the State Government to ensure the reimbursement of additional tax liability incurred by the contractors in respect of contracts, which were awarded prior to July 1, 2017 i.e. the date from which the GST law came into force. |
| Held by court : The petitioner is also required to produce before the authority concern necessary proof of the additional tax liability incurred on account of the introduction of the GST law within a period of one week. Subject to the petitioner approaching respondents No.2 to 5 along with fresh claim and necessary proof, the respondent’s authorities shall scrutinize the same and take a decision within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of claim of the petitioner along with copy of this order keeping in mind the order of the State Government. important gst case laws |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Reimbursement of additional tax liability |
| Section of GST : |
gst case laws digest pdf
GST Case Law on Refund the amount which has been erroneously paid as Tax
High Court gives relief by ordering to refund the amount of Tax.
gst case laws 2022
| High Court: Andhra Pradesh high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : : M/s Varshan enterprises VS Office of GST Council |
| Date of Judgment : 09-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition No.10637 OF 2021 |
| Judges : Mr. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, Mr. A.V.RAVINDRA BABU |
| Counsel Name : J N Venkata Suresh Kumar |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner is engaged in business of supplying telecom pipe laying services in the State of Telangana like M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal of Telangana State, whose another office is located at Mumbai. While keying in the said details and returns information in the GST common portal, the GSTIN of M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai i.e., 27AAACS4457Q1ZQ inadvertently keyed in instead of the GSTIN of M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya, Medchal Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana. In reality, they are inter-state supplies of cable laying services in the State of Telangana. Because of this human error, the actual recipient of cable laying services from the petitioner at Telangana is not able to claim the credit of the IGST paid by the petitioner. |
| Held by court : As the Circular of the year 2019 restricts only electronic filing and as the contention of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation is not acceptable, the respondents cannot retain the amount, which was paid by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief. Petitioner can make the application in manual form for refund of the amount to which he is entitled to and the respondents are directed to pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks. famous gst case laws |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST : Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 & Rule 97A of CGST Rules,2017 |
gst case laws 2022 pdf
GST Case law on unblock Electronic Credit Ledger with liberty to recover ITC with Interest
High Court orders to unblock the ITC available to the petitioner in his ECR.
gst latest case laws|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Sunny Jain VS Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 05-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Write Petition No 6444/2022, CM Nos.19502/2022 & 33763/2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, Mr. Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav |
| Counsel Name : NA |
| Fact of the Case:The petitioner claims that prior to that, on 07.09.2021, he had filed a letter with respondent no.3 raising a grievance that his ECL had been locked for a period of eighteen months without any intimation or enquiry. He had also raised an issue that in terms of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter ‘the CGST Rules’), it was impermissible to block the ECL for a period exceeding one year. Accordingly, the petitioner requested the respondents to unblock his ECL. Respondent no.2 issued a letter dated 12.11.2021, directing the petitioner to deposit interest on account of non-payment of consideration to a supplier (D.G. Impex), within a period of 180 days as required in terms of Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘the CGST Act’) and Rule 37 of the CGST Rules. |
| Held by court : Court Held that as per rule 37 and the proviso to Section 16(2) of the CGST Act leaves no room for doubt that a taxpayer is entitled to avail of ITC in the first instance even though he has not paid the supplier for the goods/services. He has to, however, reverse the same with interest by including the amount of ITC availed as a part of his output liability, if he does not make the payment to the supplier within the stipulated period of 180 days. Court also states that respondents have completely misdirected themselves in proceeding on the basis that unless a taxpayer pays the supplier, he is ineligible to avail of the ITC lying to his credit in the ECL. As per Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules, the restrictions imposed under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules cannot extend beyond the period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction. The action of the respondents to continue blocking the ITC available in the ECR of the petitioner for such extended period is without the authority of law. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Utilization of Amount available in Electronic Credit Ledger, Input tax credit |
| Section of GST : Rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017 & Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017 |
gst latest case laws pdf
GST Case law on demand of Late fees for non filling return by due date
No Late fees to be charged if returns not filed due to cancellation of GST registration, which was restored subsequently
gst important case laws|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Calcutta high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : Modicum Enterprise Pvt ltd VS Deputy Commissioner of State Tax/Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Shibpur Charge & Ors. |
| Date of Judgment : 22-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : M.A.T No.1828 of 2022 with I.A. No .CAN 1 of 2022 |
| Judges : Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam, Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharya |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Sourabh Sankar Sengupta, Mr. Indranil Biswa |
| Fact of the Case: The appellant was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the rules framed thereunder. The registration was cancelled on the ground that the appellant was a non-existing dealer. The question would be whether the late fee can be demanded from the appellant. Admittedly, the provision deals with a person, who fails to furnish the returns either under Section 39 or Section 45 or Section 44. In the instant case, the revenue does not state that the appellant failed to furnish its return within the due date. The reason for non-furnishing the return is cancellation of the registration on the ground that the appellant is a non-existing dealer. |
| Held by court : This appeal and the connected application as well as the writ petition are disposed of by restraining the respondents from demanding any late fee from the appellant in respect of the returns, which they intend to file and to facilitate the process of filing the return, the nodal officer in the Goods and Services Tax Help Desk, Kolkata is directed to render necessary assistance so that the appellant will be able to file the return without the payment of late fee. This direction shall be complied with within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Demand of Late fee for non filling of return by due date |
| Section of GST : Section 47,CGST Act,2017, Section 73 of CGST Act,2017.section 29 & 30 of CGST Act,2017 |
gst important case laws pdf
GST Case law on Provisional attachment of Property
High Court restricts Bank account in Provisional attachment of Property
gst related case laws|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : R Enterprise VS Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 21-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition .(C) 17436/2022 & CM Appl. 55565/2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, Mr. Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Arjun Malik, Advocate. |
| Fact of the Case: 1. the petitioner claims that it was denied access to its bank account on 05.11.2021 without being informed of any reason for the same, since then the petitioner is unable to operate the bank account. 2. The petitioner claims that it also met the Manager of the said bank, who also declined to inform him the reason for freezing withdrawals from the bank account on the ground that the same was confidential. 3. Petitioner claims that it has been repeatedly pursuing its bank for providing him the reasons for freezing the account but has received no information from the said bank. |
| Held by court : In so far as the reasons for freezing the bank account is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the ICICI Bank for seeking the reasons for freezing the bank account. The bank is directed to provide the petitioner the reasons for the same. It is expected that the Respondent’s will complete the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Concept of GST : Provisional attachment of Property |
| Section of GST : Section 83 of CGST Act,2017 & Section 70 of CGST Act,2017.Rule 159 of CGST Rules,2017 |
gst related case laws pdf
GST Case Laws on Refund the amount paid during investigation with interest @ 6%
High Court orders to refund the amount of Tax with interest @ 6%
recent gst judgment|Recent GST Case Laws 2022
| High Court: Delhi high court judgment on GST 2022 |
| Name of case : M/S. Vallabh Textile VS Senior Intelligence Officer And ORS |
| Date of Judgment : 20-12-2022 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition (C) 9834/2022 |
| Judges : Mr.Rajiv Shakdher, Ms.Tara Vitasta Ganju |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Vivek Sarin with Mr. Dibya Prashant Singh, Advocates |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner engaged in business of selling very goods on behalf of 3rd parties on commission basis. The official respondents/revenue claim that the RMGs sold, in cash, On behalf of the aforementioned entities by the petitioner-concern were Worth Rs.149.90 crores against which it received by way of a commission [at the rate of 5%] Rs.7.50 crores. It is alleged that the commission was also received in cash. Thus, according to the official respondents/revenue, the petitioner concern failed to disclose the said cash transactions, and pay the requisite tax on the commission earned by it. Search at the petitioner-concern’s premises was Conducted between 16.02.2022 and 17.02.2022. Rs.1, 80, 10,000 deposited by petitioner for Tax, Interest and penalty |
| Held by court : Deposit of amount pending search proceedings was not a voluntary payment as there was no acknowledgement of acceptance of payment issued in Form GST DRC-04 as mandated under Rule 142. Amount deposited did not have an element of voluntariness attached to it Payments made were involuntary and same was evident from fact that deposits were made during midnight and early hours when search was not concluded Failure to follow procedure prescribed under law was proof that deposits were not voluntary. Hence high court order to return the amount of Rs.1, 80, 10,000 along with interest @ 6% within 10 days of receipt of copy of judgement |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Concept of GST : Investigation -Payment during investigation |
| Section of GST : Rule 142 of CGST Rules,2017,Section 67of CGST Act,2017, Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 |
recent gst judgment pdf
Read similar articles