GST Weekly Flashback for the period 2 to 8 March 2025.
Supreme court
Standard Chartered Bank Constraint To File TRAN-01 On Other State’s GST-Portal: Supreme Court Dismisses Dept’s SLP
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the department over TRAN-01 filing via other State’s GST-portal by Standard Chartered Bank.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has upheld the decision on the Telangana High Court by which it quashed the demand, penalty, interest against Standard Chartered Bank while stating that due to the technical glitch in Maharashtra’s GST Portal, Bank was constrained to file return in Telangana.
Delhi High Court
Provisional Attachment Under GST Can’t Operate Beyond 12 Months: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the provisional attachment made with reference to powers conferred by Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 cannot operate beyond a period of twelve months.
The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja found that since the one-year limitation period had lapsed, the attachment was no longer valid.
Relief to Airlines: Delhi High Court Strikes Down IGST Levy On Re-Imported Aircraft Parts
In a significant relief for aviation companies, including IndiGo, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday struck down the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) levy on the repair cost of goods re-imported into India after being sent abroad for maintenance.
A division bench comprising Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja delivered the judgment, striking down the additional IGST levy imposed under the 2021 notification.
GST Dept. To Return Seized Goods On Failure To Issue Notice Within 6 Months: Delhi High Court
The Delhi high Court has held that the department must return seized goods on failure to issue notice within 6 months.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has held that upon the expiry of six months, the person whose goods are seized becomes entitled to their return and the said right cannot be sought to be defeated unilaterally and the affected person would be entitled to a notice of the proposal for extension prior to the expiry of six months.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Stays Rs. 71.23 Crore GST Demand Based On 4 Years Consolidated Notice
The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court has stayed Rs. 71.23 Crore GST demand based on 4 years consolidated notice.
The bench of Justice S. G. Mehare and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme has observed that there is a prima facie material to stay the demand as issuing consolidated notice is impermissible and it goes to the hook of the jurisdiction. Taxing double for the same thing, is prima facie unjustifiable and since the product for which the GST sought is industry base, it is not taxable.
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To MSMEs On GST Levy for Assignment of MIDC Leasehold Rights
The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief on the contentious issue of levy of GST on the assignment of leasehold rights of the plots allotted by Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), from the lessee-assignor to a third party-assignee.
The bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has granted a stay to the members of the MSME Associations from adjudication of show cause notices and recovery actions in pursuance of orders issued by GST Authorities.
5% vs 18% GST Dispute: After Caramel Popcorn GST Controversy, Donut Taxation Dispute Heats Up: Bombay High Court Halts GST Recovery Against Mad Over Donuts
The Bombay High Court is set to determine the appropriate Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate applicable to donuts and cakes, specifically whether they should be taxed at 5% under restaurant services or at 18% as bakery products.
The case is being heard by a bench comprising Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice FP Pooniwalla on whether the supply of donuts falls within the ambit of restaurant services under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 9963 or should be categorised as a bakery product subject to separate tax treatment under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
Gujarat High Court
GST On Salary Forfeiture For Employee’s Early Exit Wrongly Paid By Assessee: Gujarat High Court Directs Refund With 9% Interest
The Gujarat High Court ruled that while directing the department to refund the Goods and Service Tax (GST) wrongly paid by the assessee along with the 9% interest held that GST is not applicable on forfeiture of salary or payment of bond amount in the event of an employee leaving the employment before the minimum agreed period.
The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N.Ray has observed that just as citizens have to diligently pay tax which are legally due to the State, equally, as a corollary of the aforesaid statement, the State is not entitled to unjustly enrich itself with amounts collected from citizens which are not sanctioned as “Tax” within the meaning of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Rs.1.7 Crore Utilised ITC Refund for Patanjali Foods, Rejects Dept.’s Recovery
In a major relief to Patanjali Foods, the Gujarat High Court has upheld the Rs.1.7 Crore utilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund and rejected the department’s recovery.
The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N.Ray has observed that exact logic, Para 2(2) of the circular dated 10.11.2022 provides that the restriction contained in notification no. 13.7.2022 will apply to all the refund applications filed after 13.7.2022, even though they are pertaining to a period prior to the date of notification, is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and ultra-vires Section 54 of the GST Act as well as violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Kerala High Court
Consolidated Notice Leads To Higher Pre-Deposit For Preferring Appeal: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the a consolidated notice would also result in a consolidated adjudication order covering several financial/assessment years and in the event of it being adverse to the assessee, the fee/pre- deposit required to be paid by an assessee for preferring a statutory appeal would also be higher.
The bench of Dr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. has observed that higher pre-deposit could not have been the Scheme of the statutory provisions which are expected to adhere to principles of fairness in taxation.
Calcutta High Court
GSTAT Yet To Be Constituted: Calcutta High Court Unconditionally Stays Demand
The Calcutta High Court has unconditional stay of the demand of the Appellate order for a period of two weeks on the ground that the Goods and Service Tax Tribunal (GSTAT) is not yet constituted.
The bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj has observed that in the event, the petitioner makes payment of 10% of the balance amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount already deposited in terms of Section 107(6) of the GST Act, within two weeks from date, the interim order passed herein, shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition or until further order, whichever is earlier.
Allahabad High Court
Seizure Under GST Can Be Made Citing Under-Valuation: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the seizure under Goods and Service Tax (GST) can be made citing under-valuation.
The bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has observed that the seizure can be made even on the ground of under valuation, if under valuation is deliberate for the purpose of avoiding payment of tax or to defeat the provisions of the GST Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Citing Non-Mention Of DIN Number
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the GST assessment order citing non-mention of Director Identification Number (DIN).
The bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao has observed that the non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of the proceedings under GST.
