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: The company CG Associates has filed a writ petition to request reimbursement of the extra tax paid to the Water Resources Department. The petitioner argues that they were issued a work order on April 25, 2022, with a specified GST rate of 12%. However, on July 18, 2022, the GST rate was increased to 18%, which meant that the petitioner had to pay the enhanced rate. The petitioner’s claim is based on the fact that they should not have to bear the additional cost resulting from the change in GST rates. The Petitioner has argued that they are entitled to a refund, based on the amended Clause 2.17.1 of the Agreement. This clause was amended by the Department itself on September 30, 2022, and provides that any new tax or levy or cess imposed by statute or any change in the existing royalty/tax/levy/GST after the last stipulated date for the receipt of the tender, including extensions, would be considered a new tax. The Petitioner is required to pay such new tax, but the Engineer in Charge of the Department would reimburse the Petitioner upon submission of proof. Furthermore, if there is a reduction in the tax rate, the Petitioner is obliged to reimburse the said amount to the State Government. According to the Petitioner, as there was an increase in the GST rate, the Department must reimburse the extra tax paid, as per the terms of Clause 2.17.1 of the Agreement. |
| 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 High Court had granted bail to the Appellant, subject to the condition of depositing Rs. 70 lakhs. However, the Appellant argued that this condition was not sustainable, as the FIR was related to the wrongly availed ITC of Rs. 6.95 crore, and the final assessment had not been made yet. Therefore, the Appellant claimed that the condition of depositing Rs. 70 lakhs within 45 days from the date of release as a prerequisite for bail was not justified. |
| Held by court : The Government counsel had admitted that the condition of depositing Rs. 70 lakhs could not be imposed while granting bail. Therefore, the condition directing the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs was not valid and was to be set aside. However, the rest of the conditions mentioned in the challenged order were deemed to be valid and would be upheld. |
| 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 Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the concerned party in a format that did not strike out irrelevant particulars. Additionally, a summary of the order was issued within five days, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the concerned party. |
| Held by court : The Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to the taxpayer was found to be vague in nature, as it did not clearly spell out the contraventions against them. It was deemed necessary that the summary of the SCN, which provides for the contraventions, should be issued along with the SCN. The term ‘along with’ indicates that both the SCN and its summary should be issued together. While the summary of the SCN had to be issued electronically to keep track of the proceeding initiated against the registered person, the SCN itself need not necessarily be issued electronically.Since the SCN issued was vague, the foundation of proceedings suffered from a material irregularity. As a result, the summary of the order could not sanctify the same. Moreover, the summary of the order issued within five days of issuing the summary of the SCN was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the SCN, summary of SCN, and summary of order issued were to be set aside. |
| 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: On November 4, 2022, Gaurav Kakkar was arrested for allegedly committing an offence under clauses (c), (f), (k), and (l) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was alleged that the Petitioner created fake firms to avail and pass ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) to facilitate existing beneficiary firms, to the tune of INR 19.65 crores, based on fake invoices. The Petitioner claimed that they have been falsely implicated and that their arrest was made without determining the tax liability, and on the basis of frivolous grounds for calculating the alleged ITC availed. Moreover, the Petitioner argued that there is no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, as the challan of the case has already been presented. Therefore, it was contended that the Petitioner should be granted bail as keeping them in jail would serve no useful purpose.The Respondent argued that the Petitioner is believed to be the main culprit behind the creation of fictitious companies for the purpose of fraudulent ITC claims via bogus invoicing, and that the evidence gathered supports this claim, therefore, the plea for bail should be dismissed. |
| 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 Union of India |
| 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: The petitioner has filed a petition seeking permission to rectify the Form GSTR-1 by correcting the GSTIN recorded in the invoices issued to the recipient, in order to enable the recipient of the supply to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC). |
| Held by court : The error made in this case, which involved mentioning the GSTIN of another group company of the recipient, was made in good faith and due to unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. The Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) provides for rectification of bona fide and inadvertent errors made at the time of filing returns, and it is applicable in this case. The Department has been directed to follow the procedure prescribed in the circular and allow the Input Tax Credit (ITC) subject to verification. Although the circular is applicable to the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19, as the error committed in this case is identical, the circular is also applicable to the financial year 2019-20. |
| 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 applicant had filed a consolidated claim for refund of unutilized ITC for three units which were registered under the same GSTIN, and the claim was granted. However, the quantum of refund claimed by each unit separately was much higher than the total amount claimed in the consolidated claim. Subsequently, the applicant filed a manual application for supplementary refund, but it was denied on the ground that since all units were registered under a common GSTIN, the refund cannot be claimed separately for each unit. |
| Held by court : It is not possible to claim a supplementary refund based on unit-wise transactions when all three units are registered under a common GSTIN. Additionally, filing a supplementary refund application after the original refund application has been disposed of is not supported by the law. Refund based on unit-wise transactions cannot be claimed when returns are filed by disclosing consolidated figures. Furthermore, making a fresh claim for supplementary refund after the original application has been granted would be considered a review of the decision already taken by the concerned authority. Therefore, seeking a fresh consideration of the refund already granted on the basis of the claim made in the original refund application is not a viable recourse. The CGST Act does not provide for filing a supplementary refund application, especially when a different approach was taken while filing the original refund application. If the refund under the original application was granted, considering all units together and accepted by the assessee, the application for a supplementary refund could not be entertained. The challenge to the circular stating that manual refund applications are not permitted was not sustainable. The Court cannot exceed the boundaries or extend the provisions for refund beyond what the Legislature has provided, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. case – Rule 89(4) is valid and in line with the provisions of the CGST Act – As Rule 89(4) is framed in accordance with the powers given to the Government under Section 164, there is no need to modify said rule – The petition has been dismissed. |
| 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: : A demand order was issued under section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but a show cause notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A, as required under rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, was not issued. The matter was challenged in a writ petition. |
| Held by court : It was acknowledged that the initiation of proceedings required a notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A, as per rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which would have included details of any tax, interest, and penalties determined by the officer. A subsequent reminder would not have rectified the fundamental flaw in the proceedings against the petitioner. The challenged order was to be set aside, with the respondents having the right to initiate new proceedings against the petitioner in compliance with the law. |
| 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 petitioner argued that while the time limit for issuing an adjudication order had been extended for the financial year 2017-18, the time limit for extending the show cause notice had not been extended. The petitioner also contended that if the show cause notice was not issued within three months prior to the time for issuance of the order, the entire proceedings would be deemed as without jurisdiction. |
| Held by court : As per section 73(2) and section 73(10), a show cause notice must be issued at least three months prior to the specified time for issuance of an order. When the time period for issuance of an order is extended, the time limit for issuance of a show cause notice also stands extended with reference to such date. In this case, the due date for issuing an order for the financial year 2017-18 has been extended until 30-9-2023, and the same would apply correspondingly to the computation of the time limit for issuance of a show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be said to have been issued without jurisdiction. |
| 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 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
FAQS
What is the Supreme Court decision on ITC?
In case of Subhash Chouhan VS Union of India Supreme Court removes High Court bail restriction of Rs. 70 lakhs for alleged incorrect input tax credit availment.
Read similar articles
