The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws 2023. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in January 2023 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of January 2023 in this article have been classified by name, date, judge, counsel, GST Topic, 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 Refund of additional GST| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Chhattisgarh High court orders to consider the representation to refund additional GST
| High Court: Chhattisgarh High Court Judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : CG Associates VS State of Chhattisgarh |
| Date of Judgment : 05-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition (T) No.288 of 2022 |
| Judges : P. Sam Koshy |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate. |
| Fact of the Case: M/s CG Associates (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition with the Water Resources Department (“the Department”) to get the extra tax back. The petitioner said that on April 25, 2022, the Department sent out a work order that said the GST rate to be paid was 12%. But on July 18, 2022, the GST rate went up from 12% to 18%, which meant that Petitioner had to pay GST at the higher rate. The petitioner said that he wanted a refund because, according to the amended Clause 2.17.1 of the Agreement, which was changed by the Department on September 30, 2022, any other new tax or levy or cess imposed by statute or any deviation in the existing royalty/tax/levy/GST after the last stipulated date for the receipt of the tender, including any extensions, would be treated as a new tax and would have to be paid by the petitioner. Also, if the tax rate went down, the petitioner would pay that amount back to the State Government. Since the GST rate went up, the Department must pay back the difference according to Clause 2.17.1 of the Agreement. The Petitioner also said that it had given the Respondents a detailed Representation on November 6, 2022, but that the Respondents had not yet decided what to do with it. |
| Held by court : In Writ Petition (T) No. 288 of 2022, the Chhattisgarh High Court said the following: 1.The Respondents did not disagree with the Petitioner’s request that the filed Representation be taken into account. 2.Told the Respondents to think about the Petitioner’s Representation and decide what to do with it within 90 days. 3.Allowed the petitioner to make a new presentation to the respondents with proof of the additional tax liability the petitioner had to pay to help make a decision. 4.Told the Respondents to take steps to get back the extra tax money they had to pay. Recent GST Case Laws 2023 |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Topic of GST : Refund of Additional GST due change in tax rate |
| Section of GST : Not applicable |
GST Case laws pdf
GST Case law on ITC| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Supreme Court removes High Court bail restriction of Rs. 70 lakhs for alleged incorrect input tax credit availment.
| Supreme Court Judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Subhash Chouhan VS Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 20-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : Criminal Appeal 186/2023 SLP CRL No 6640/2022 |
| Judges : Krishna Murari, B.V. Nagarathna |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, AOR Mrs. Poonam Sharma., Adv. Mr. Moksh Tyagi, Adv. |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner was arrested because it was said that he had used Rs. 6,95,32,472 of ITC in an illegal way by making a fake invoice and a dummy company. He was also said to have sold goods worth Rs. 27,70,559 without paying tax or giving an invoice. The court’s order from June 21, 2022 says that bail was given, but there were some rules. One of the conditions was that the appellant had to pay a sum of Rs.70 Lakhs to the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Raipur, under protest, within 45 days of his release. It is this condition that is being questioned. |
| Held by court : The requirement that the appellant put down Rs.70 Lakhs as a deposit is not likely to be upheld, so it is taken away. gst landmark judgement |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Topic of GST : Condition of Bail , Input tax credit |
| Section of GST: Section 132 of GST Act,2017 |
GST Case laws pdf
GST Case law on violation of principal of natural justice| Recent GST Case Laws 2023
Jharkhand High Court set aside the summary order without providing a hearing chance
| High Court : Jharkhand High Court Judgement 2023 |
| Name of case : M/s Chitra Automobile VS State of Jharkhand |
| Date of Judgment : 24-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : Writ. Petition.(T) No. 4784 of 2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Deepak Roshan |
| Counsel Name : M/s Ravi Kumar, Akata Anand, Bhawesh Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, Sneha Sonam, Advocates |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner was given a SCN dated February 12, 2022 (“the Impugned SCN”) and a summary of the SCN in Form GST DRC-01 for allegedly breaking the rules of the CGST Act in March 2019, along with a demand for a total of INR 30,22,586/-, which included GST and interest. But the Revenue Department (called “the Respondent”) sent the Petitioner a summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 on February 12, 2022 (called “the Impugned Order”) because the Petitioner hadn’t given a response to the SCN. The petitioner said that the impugned SCN was unclear and didn’t say why it was being charged. Because of this, the petitioner said, the impugned SCN broke the rule of law and principles of natural justice. Also, the disputed order was made just five days after the disputed SCN was made. |
| Held by court : In this case, the challenged show-cause notice doesn’t have all the things that a proper show-cause notice should have. This is a violation of the principles of natural justice, so the challenge can be made under the court’s writ jurisdiction. So, the show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Act from February 12, 2022 (Annexure 1), the summary of the show cause notice in FORM GST DRC-01 from the same date (Annexure 2), and the summary of the order from February 17, 2022 (Annexure 3) are all null and void. It is made clear that since this court hasn’t looked at the case’s merits, the respondents are free to start a new case from the point of sending a “show cause” notice under Section 73(1) of the JGST Act, 2017 as required by law. Because of this, the instant application is accepted. Also, I.A. No. 11817 of 2022 has been taken care of. gst judgement till date |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Topic of GST : Show cause notice issued under section 73(1) of CGST Act, 2017,Principal of natural justice |
| Section of GST: Section 73 and Rule 142 of CGST Rules,2017 |
GST case laws pdf
GST Case law on bail application under GST
Rajasthan High court grants the accused bail in Obtaining and passing a fraudulent or ineligible ITC
Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court : Rajasthan high court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Gaurav Kakkar VS Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence |
| Date of Judgment : 11-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17536/2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg |
| Counsel Name : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Yash Vardhan Nandwana |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner has been arrested for breaking the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, Section 132(1)(c), (f), (k), and (l). The case against the petitioner is that he made fake companies so that he could get and pass on fake or ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) to help existing beneficiary companies. It is said that ITC worth Rs. 19.65 crores was claimed based on goods-less invoices, which is not allowed by Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. |
| Held by court : The bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is granted, and the petitioner, Gaurav Kakkar, son of Kishan Lal Kakkar, is ordered to be released on bail as long as he signs a personal bond for Rs.2,000,000 with two sureties for Rs.1,000,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, promising to appear in court on every date of hearing and when asked to do so until the end of the trial. Before approving the bail bonds, the trial court is told to record the petitioner’s receipt of the deposit of Rs. 3 crores. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Topic of GST : Input Tax Credit on Fake Invoices|Bail application |
| Section of GST: section 16 and section 132 of CGST Act, 2017. |
Latest GST case laws PDF
GST Case law on Gamming Service
gst online gaming case law
Rajasthan high court held that some of online gaming are game of skills rather than that of betting or gambling
| High Court : Rajasthan high court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Myteam11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited VS |
| Date of Judgment : 18-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1100/2023 |
| Judges : Pankaj Mithal , Shubha Mehta |
| Counsel Name :Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Mr. Sandeep Shekhawat Mr. David Mehla Ms. Shweta Chauhan Ms. Sejal Harneja |
| Fact of the Case: On their websites MyTeam11.in, the petitioner-Company offers online gaming services such as rummy, poker, fantasy sports, and casual games (Cricket, Candy Crush, Carrom, Solitaire, etc.). Under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax, 2017 (commonly known as “CGST, 2017”), the petitioners claim that the petitioner-Company has avoided tax by classifying its supply as a service rather than as actionable claims, which are goods, and by engaging in activities such as betting, and ask why the demands of GST, interest on those demands, and penalty as referred to in the notice may not be confirmed. |
| Held by court :Some of the games that the petitioners provide online have already been determined to be skill of games as opposed to games of chance or betting/gambling. The issuance of the contested show cause notice is thus nothing more than a misuse of the legal system when the case has been so decided by numerous Courts. The petitioners must respond to the contested show cause notice dated 09.12.2022, if they haven’t already, within a month of today until the respondents make a final decision in the matter, which would be subject to the outcome of this petition. Otherwise, the respondents may not take any coercive measures to recover any money from the petitioners until further orders of the Court. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Topic of GST : : Classification |
| Section of GST: Schedule III of CGST Act 2017|Section 74 of CGST Act 2017 |
PDF of latest GST case laws
GST Case law on GSTR-1
Recent GST Case Laws 2023
High court allows to rectification in GSTR-1 on the portal.
| High Court : Karnataka High Court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : M/S Wipro India Limited VS Assistant commissioner of Central taxes |
| Date of Judgment : 06-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : Writ petition No 16175 of 2022 |
| Judges : S.R.Krishna Kumar |
| Counsel Name : Prashanth Sabarish Shivadass |
| Fact of the Case: M/s Wipro Limited India (“the Petitioner”) while making supplies to the M/s ABB Global Industries and Services Private Limited, incorrectly mentioned the GSTIN in the invoices of ABB India Limited, which is a completely different and independent juristic and legal entity. Being aggrieved this petition has been filed by the Petitioner, contending that the error committed in the invoices and relevant forms were bonafide and therefore, as per the Circular, the Petitioner should be allowed to access the GST portal in order to rectify Form GSTR-1 uploaded between FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 so that the recipient can claim credit of the tax paid by the Petitioner |
| Held by court : Benefits of circular No.183/15/2022 GST dt.27-12-2022 regarding mismatch in ITC with GSTR-2A is also available for FY 2019-20 even though circular refers to FY 2017-18 & 2018-19 only. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Topic of GST : Mismatch in ITC with GSTR-2A |
| Section|Circular of GST: Clarification issued in Circular 183/15/2022 Dt 27-12-2022. |
latest judgment on gst PDF
GST Case law on Refund
Orissa high court allows refund of Zero rated supplies under Rule 89(4).
latest gst judgements | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court : Orissa high court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Vedanta Limited VS Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 04-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition (C) NOS. 33278, 24499 OF 2020 & 32166 OF 2021 |
| Judges : Murahari Sri Raman |
| Counsel Name : M/s. Puneet Agrawal and Prasanta Kumar Nayak, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner is a public limited compnay with three units that produces aluminium goods. The petitioner requested a reimbursement of unused input tax credits on account of zero-rated supply falling under the purview of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017 after paying Compensation Cess on the purchase of coal for use as an input. In accordance with Section 54(3) of the CGST Act of 2017 and Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules of 2017, the petitioner submitted a Form RFD-01 application for a refund of unused input tax credits, including compensation cess, for each month from September 2017 to January 2018 and from July 2018 to February 2020, with the exception of October 2018. This application related to zero-rated supplies made by all the units combined. It was discovered that the amount of refund that was permitted when all units were considered at once was significantly smaller. |
| Held by court : There is no room for the petitioner-company to insist on the examination of an additional reimbursement application based on a new computation that was generated by accounting for individual unit-level transactions. The request (alternative) for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the opposing parties to compel them to permit the petitioner to file a refund application is not warranted by the facts or the circumstances of the case because the petitioner had already filed applications for refund that had been properly examined and approved by opposing party No. 6—Assistant Commissioner—and there was no need for the said authority to revisit the refund request in light of those circumstances. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 and Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules,2017 |
latest gst judgements PDF
GST Case law related to DRC-01A
Allahabad High Court says Order is valid only if notice is issued in Part A of DRC-01A
GST Case law related to demand order without notice
| High Court : Allahabad high court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : : M/s Skyline Automation Industries VS State of UP |
| Date of Judgment : 02-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : Writ Tax No. 1512 OF 2022 |
| Judges : Mr. J.J. Munir, Mr. Rajesh Bindal |
| Counsel Name :Mr. Ashish Agrawal and Mr. Shubham Agrawal |
| Fact of the Case: : The petitioner claims that before passing any orders under Section 74 of the Act, a show cause notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A must be issued in accordance with the provisions of Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) as they were at the time of the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner before they were amended on October 15, 2020. Only after that does the Competent Authority have the authority to issue an order. Any further proceedings in the aforementioned case will lack jurisdiction because notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, giving the petitioner an unfair opportunity to respond. |
| Held by court : A notification required by Rule 142(1A) of the Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A, which called for communication of details of any tax, interest, and penalties as determined by the officer, was not issued prior to the start of proceedings against the petitioner. Any further reminders will not fix the underlying problem with the actions taken against the petitioner. The sole distinction in the current instance is that a later order was also issued on November 10, 2022, but this will have no bearing on the outcome. The order that was made as a result of the poor proceedings will likewise be invalid. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Topic of GST : Notice u/s 142(1A) of CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section of GST: : Section 142(1A) of CGST Act, 2017 & Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 |
GST Case law on disputes of intra/inter state transaction
High court offers refund for the tax on the service on which tax is paid twice.
| High Court : Rajasthan |
| Name of case : M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd VS Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 11-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 393/2023 |
| Judges : MR. Pankaj Mithal, Mrs.Shubha Mehta |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Hemant Kothari with Mr. Gaurav Baheti |
| Fact of the Case: A private limited firm with its registered office in Delhi Cantt is the petitioner. Its main line of work is providing labour to various organisations. It provided M/s GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. with workforce services. The petitioner paid an 18% Integrated Goods and Services Tax on the provision of the aforementioned labour service. A show-cause notice dated 3.07.2020 was served on the petitioner, asking them to provide justification as to why they should not be subject to a demand for CGST+RGST, interest, and penalties under Section 74 of the GST Act. |
| Held by court :It is stated that the petitioner may submit an application for the refund of the IGST in the prescribed form as per the Act and the Rules within two weeks of today. If the application is moved and is found to be in order, the respondents shall process it as has been specified under the Rules within two months from the receipt of the said application, and the petitioner is instructed to deposit the remaining 65% of CGST+RGST within the same two-week time frame. Furthermore, it is stated that the accounts of the petitioner that were attached in order to realize the disputed amount will be freed upon the petitioner’s application for the refund of the IGST. |
| In favor of : Partly in favor of Assesee |
| Topic of GST : Intra/Inter state transaction & Refund |
| Section of GST: Section 7 of CGST Act,2017 |
latest judgment under gst PDF
GST Case law on time limit of Show cause notice u/s 73
When the time limit for issuing an order is extended, the time limit for issuing a show cause notice under Section 73(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 is also extended for 2017-18.
GST latest judgement
Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court : Kerala high court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Pappachan Chakkiath VS Assistant Commissioner, CTO North Paravur |
| Date of Judgment : 11-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : Writ Petition (C) NO. 816 OF 2023 |
| Judges : Mr. GOPINATH P. J. |
| Counsel Name :Yash Thomas, Soman P Paul |
| Fact of the Case: :The learned attorney representing the petitioner claims that only the time limit for issuing orders has been increased; the time limit for issuing show cause notices has not. |
| Held by court :It is directed that the petitioner will be allowed to file the appeal against Ext.P4 order within a period of two weeks from today. The deadline for filing the appeal may be extended by a period of two weeks from today. The appellate authority will evaluate the merits of the appeal if it is filed within the specified two-week window and will be deemed as timely filed. Due dates for 2017–2018 orders have been postponed until 30 September 2023; this also applies to the computation of the show cause notice’s time limit. No one could claim that the contested instructions were issued without authority. |
| In favor of : Revenue |
| Topic of GST : Issuance of show cause notice u/s 73(2) for FY 2017-18 |
| Section of GST: Section 73 of CGST Act Read with section 168A of CGST Act, 2017 |
GST latest judgement PDF
GST Case law on show cause notice sent on incorrect address
High court allows to remands the case to appellate authority to consider afresh.
gst case laws 2023
| High Court : Jharkhand high court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : Global Construction VS Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 04-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : : Writ.Petition .(T) No. 493 of 2022 |
| Judges : Mr. Deepak Roshan |
| Counsel Name : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Hemant Jain |
| Fact of the Case: The appellate order and the original order both list the petitioner’s address as M/s Global Construction (A Proprietorship Business), with an office at Qr. No. 1304, Sector-1/C, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand), with a zip code of 827001. As a result, it is clear that notices were sent to the Proprietor of M/s Global Construction at an inaccurate or insufficient address. The assumption of proof of service of notice is a rebuttable piece of evidence, and since the trace consignment report lacks the petitioner’s complete address, it is impossible to assume that the order’s original notice was properly served. |
| Held by Court : In light of these facts, we are confident that the grounds for rejecting the memo of appeal are unsupportable. The appellate order is so reversed. The appellate authority is given a new opportunity to assess the case in conformity with the law. The immediate writ petition has been approved. Please note that we have not discussed the merits of the parties’ argument with regard to the application of tax, penalty, and interest. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Topic of GST : Notice issued under Section 79 of CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section of GST: Section 79 of CGST Act, 2017 |
gst latest case laws pdf
GST Case law on Vouchers
High court says Vouchers are in the nature of instruments covered under the definition of Money. GST is not imposed on vouchers as it is not qualify as goods or services
recent gst judgment | Recent GST Case Laws 2023
| High Court : Karnataka high court judgement on GST 2023 |
| Name of case : M/s Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Limited VS Union of India |
| Date of Judgment : 16-01-2023 |
| Appeal No : 5569 OF 2022 |
| Judges : P.S .Dinesh Kumar T.G.Shivashankare Gowda |
| Counsel Name : G.Shivadass, M.S. Nagaraja |
| Fact of the Case: The business of M/s Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”) entails obtaining from issuers Pre-paid Payment Instruments such as Gift Vouchers, Cash Back Vouchers, and E-Vouchers and dispensing them to its customers for a predetermined face value. The petitioner argued that the RBI had issued a master directive on the issuance and operation of pre-paid payment instruments, which stated that vouchers are pre-paid payment instruments that do not disclose the goods and services at the time of issuance. Because the goods are not identifiable at the time of issuance, the petitioner claimed that Section 12(4)(b) of the CGST Act requires that the time of supply be the date of redemption and the voucher can be regarded as an actionable claim. As a result, the Impugned Order issued by the AAR is illegal. |
| Held by court :Given that vouchers have no inherent value and instead represent the value of future goods or services to be redeemed, the levying of tax on such vouchers is unlawful and amounts to multiple levying of taxes. Vouchers are merely instruments accepted as payment for the supply of goods or services and have no inherent value of their own. Money is not included in the definition of a good or service, and tax is not due on gift certificates. Vouchers cannot be taxed because they are neither considered to be goods nor services. |
| In favor of : Assesse |
| Topic of GST : Prepaid payment instrument voucher|Supply |
| Section of GST: Section 9 of CGST Act,2017 ,Section 7 of CGST Act,2017 ,Section 2(118) of CGST Act,2017 |
recent gst judgment pdf
Read similar articles