The 100 Most Significant GST Judgments – Part 1 of the Year by JurisHour.
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) has revolutionized India’s taxation system, and each year brings new Supreme Court judgments shaping its interpretation and implementation.
At JurisHour, we bring you the top GST judgments of the year—a curated list for taxpayers, legal professionals, and GST practitioners.
Our selection process focuses on judgments that:
- Directly impact taxpayers and businesses through clarifications on GST law and compliance.
- Settle critical disputes in tax administration or interpretation of statutes.
- Provide valuable insights for GST lawyers, consultants, and industry leaders.
Why These Judgments Matter
GST is not just a tax—it’s a lifeline for India’s economy. From addressing compliance challenges to resolving intricate legal questions, these Supreme Court and high court’s rulings have far-reaching implications for taxpayers, businesses, and the government alike. Whether it’s clarifying refund mechanisms, input tax credit claims, or resolving jurisdictional issues, each judgment in this series holds key insights.
The list of 100 judgments will be published in four parts and this is the first part:
Table of Contents
Supreme Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Versus M/s. Madhan Agro Industries (India) Private Ltd.
The Supreme Court while putting an end to the 15-years old dispute held that coconut oil classified edible oil and 5% GST is applicable.
The bench of Chief Justice Of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan has observed that pure coconut oil sold in small quantities as ‘edible oil’ would be classifiable under Heading 1513 in Section III-Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, unless the packaging thereof satisfies all the requirements set out in Chapter Note 3 in Section VI-Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, read with the General/Explanatory Notes under the corresponding Chapter Note 3 in Chapter 33 of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature, whereupon it would be classifiable as ‘hair oil’ under Heading 3305 in Section VI- Chapter 33.
Case Title: Team Computers Private Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court has issued the notice to Union Of India as the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is not functional till date.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan has said “We would like to first know at the earliest why the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has not been made functional till this date. We want a report in the aforesaid regard by the next date of hearing.”
In the Safari Retreats Judgement, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the high court to decide whether the construction of an immovable property is a “plant” for the purposes of claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The assessees stated that due to the restrictions imposed by Section 17(5)(c) and Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, they are unable to avail the credit on GST paid on goods and services used in the construction of factory premises, buildings etc against the GST received by them for the renting/leasing/letting out etc. of the premises. GST is being recovered on the supply of goods and services used in the construction of commercial office buildings, and GST is also being recovered on rentals collected. The assessees prayed for the grant of the benefit of ITC. The prayers of the assessessees were allowed by the Orissa High Court, which was challenged by the department before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is all set to decide the issue of whether ‘cash’ qualifies as a ‘thing’ under GST.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan while issuing the notice to the assessee stated, “we need to interpret the expression “and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or things”.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kshitij Ghildiyal Versus DGGI
The Delhi High Court while pointing out that the mismanagement of arrest process by Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) declared the arrest of person accused of wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment illegal citing that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the accused.
The bench of Justice Anish Dayal has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement in which it was held that the pre-conditions act as stringent safeguards to protect the life and liberty of individuals.
Case Title: M/S Bharti Airtel Limited Versus Commissioner, Cgst Appeals-1 Delhi
The Delhi High Court has allowed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) to Bharti Airtel and held that telecom towers are movable properties.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the specific exclusion of telecommunication towers from the scope of the phrase “plant and machinery” would not lead one to conclude that the statute contemplates or envisages telecommunication towers to be immovable property. Telecommunication towers would in any event have to qualify as immovable property as a precondition to fall within the ambit of clause (d) of Section 17(5). Their exclusion from the expression “plant and machinery” would not result in it being concomitantly held that they constitute articles which are immovable.
Case Title: Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. Versus Union Of India
The Delhi High Court has held that the GST Assistant Commissioner (Refund) adopts dual standards, resulting in differential tax treatment to similarly placed assesses without any rational basis.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the differential tax treatment to similarly placed assesses is a discriminatory treatment that violates the rights of the petitioner protected under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
The Delhi High Court has stayed the proceedings under show cause notice issued by GST anti-evasion wing.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that issued notice to the respondents and granted stay on proceedings under show cause notice issued by Anti-evasion. The principle ground of challenge was that such transfer is illegal, being without jurisdiction, and beyond statutory provisions. No reliance can be placed on internal guidelines/audit manual.
The Delhi High Court in the case of M/S Vos Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. has slammed the department on failure to undertake a periodic review of pending proceedings or make even a feeble attempt to accord closure to proceedings that had been pending for decades.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that while quashing the show cause notices issued by the department observed that the department is bound and obliged in law to endeavour to conclude adjudication with due expedition. Matters which have the potential of casting financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept pending for years and decades together.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Raiden Infotech India Private Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court has restored the refund application made in Form GST RFD 01 subject to cost of Rs. 2 Lakhs.
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain have observed that merely seeking adjournments and then contending that adjournment applications were not responded to or decided one way or the other is not grounds to complain about any failure of natural justice.
Case Title: Delphi World Money Ltd. Versus The Union of India
The Bombay High Court has held that appeal cannot be dismissed alleging non-payment of pre-deposit when provisional acknowledgement receipt generated on GST portal.
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that in the memorandum of appeal, the amount of pre-deposit paid has been specified under S.No.15 of Form APL-01. The Petition has the screenshots of the Electronic Credit Ledger, and the Electronic Cash Ledger of the Petitioner downloaded from the GSTN portal. The document shows that the Petitioner has made a payment of Rs. 3,20,22,340 from the Electronic Credit Ledger and a payment of Rs. 1,22,33,134/- from the Electronic Cash Ledger.
Case Title: D N Polymers Versus Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court has held that the GST appeal cannot be rejected merely for a shortfall of pre-deposit.
The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain while relying on the judgement in the case of Delphi World Money Ltd. Vs. The Union of India observed that if there was a deficiency of short payment of pre-deposit, the petitioner should have been put to notice to rectify such deficiencies.
Case Title: PayU Payments Private Limited Versus The Union of India
The Digital Payment Solution Giant, PayU has challenged the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) before Bombay High Court. The show cause notice alleges that PayU has availed the wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 38 Crores.
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain while dismissing the petition of PayU asked PayU to file a reply to the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority.
The Bombay High Court has held that once the petitioner’s application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) accepting the payment of excise duty is accepted, the declarant is immune from imposition of any redemption fine and, therefore the benefit of the scheme gets extended to the redemption fine also.
The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that The only ground on which the application was rejected was that the Scheme does not cover the redemption fine which as observed by us is contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Esbee Electrotech LLP. It is settled position that the rejection order has to be tested on the touchstone of what is recorded in the said order and nothing can be added or subtracted therefrom or improvised either by way of reply or by way of arguments.
The Bombay High Court has quashed the GST Demand order against corporate debtor.
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain have observed that the officer has not considered the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishras case and Bombay High Court in Murli Industries case.
Madras High Court
- State Can Block Electronic Credit Ledger To Extent Of Fraudulently Availed Credit: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court in the case of Tvl. Skanthaguru Innovations Private Limited Versus Commercial Tax Officerwhile upholding the blocking order passed by the state held that State Authorities are empowered to pass blocking orders to the extent of credit, which was fraudulently availed and available in Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) for discharge of output tax liabilities either at the time of blocking or subsequently, in the event if the same was already utilised.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ashok Sharma Versus The State of West Benal
The Calcutta High Court has held that regulatory measures under the GST laws are necessary to ensure compliance and prevent tax evasion and do not constitute a violation of fundamental rights.
The bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj has observed that the petitioner’s failure to maintain consistent and transparent inventory records further supported the inference of intent to evade taxes.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/S Rahul Steels Through And Others Versus Union Of India And Others
In a major relief to the GST department, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has Dismissed Petition Challenging Single show cause notice (SCN) for multiple Assessment Years (AYs) in circular trading case, which is contrary to other High Court rulings.
The bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi has observed that the total period during which these fake ITCs were generated is from 2017 to 2022, therefore, a joint assessment is liable to be conducted of six companies / notice in the aforesaid period. In such types of circular trading matters, the assessment can be done by calling all the firms / companies involved in trading in the relevant years by the proper office. This matter cannot be proceeded individually in a given facts and circumstances under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017.
Rajasthan High Court
The Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court while dismissing a writ petition challenging the show cause notice held that Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) is empowered on PAN India Basis to issue show cause notice (SCN).
The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Ashutosh Kumar has observed that multiple searches were conducted by the DGGI at different locations to unearth the availment of the fake ITC at the instance of fake invoices without actual delivery of goods and the DGGI being the Central Tax Authority has been empowered on PAN India basis to make investigations and to issue Show cause notices by the Board on intelligence based enforcement actions; as such, the SCN so issued by the DGGI is not lacked jurisdiction.
Meghalaya High Court
The Meghalaya High Court in the case of M/s Marbaniang Projects Private Limited Versus PNB addresses the issue of non-releasing of amounts deposited in escrow accounts for GST payment.
The bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew has directed the respondent, PNB Bank to redeem the matter by taking corrective measures with regard to the facilitation of filing of GST returns, payable by the petitioner Company from the year 2017 onwards, as mandated by law.
Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S Tata Aldesa (J.V.) Versus State of UP has held that interest on delayed refund cannot be denied due to dispute between state and central GST department.
The Allahabad High Court in case of M/S Saru Silver Alloys Pvt Ltd Versus UOI stayed the recovery in the writ petition filed by the exporter challenging Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules which takes away the right of the exporter to claim refund of tax which is a right granted by the substantive provisions of the IGST Act.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has noted that the provisions of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, based on which the order impugned has been passed, has been struck down by the Kerala High Court in M/s. Sance Laboratories Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.. Further submissions have been made that the authority has relied on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Cosmo Films Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., which judgment has subsequently been reviewed by order dated 19.09.2024.
The Allahabad High Court has asked the assessee to pre-deposit 50% of disputed tax for not filing the reply to the show cause notice.
Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court in the case of Bangalore Electrical Supply Company Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax North Division quashed the assessment order and held that the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) could not make assessee liable to pay double tax.
Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has allowed the Input Tax Credit on delayed returns.
The bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that Clause (5) of Section 16 inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, with effect from 01.07.2017, the department directed to allow the petitioner to take Input Tax Credit in respect of delayed returns filed for the Financial Year 2017-18, and the interest and penalty levied on the petitioner by the respondents shall be refunded with 6% p.a interest from the date of such collection till the date of repayment.
