The 100 Most Significant GST Judgments – Part II 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 second part. Click Here to read the first part.
Table of Contents
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the input tax credit (ITC) disallowance cannot be a punishment for late return filing.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the GST department cannot be prevented from conducting preliminary inquiry relating to books of accounts of a registered person.
Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that the retrospective GST registration cancellation of supplier cannot absolve the buyer to verify input tax credit (ITC) claim authenticity.
The bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj has observed the retrospective cancellation of the suppliers’ GST registrations did not invalidate the transactions, nor did it absolve the petitioners of the need to verify the authenticity of their claims for ITC.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Lloyd Insulations India Limited Versus State Tax Officer
The Kerala High Court in the case of Lloyd Insulations India Limited Versus State Tax Officer has opened the door for revisiting denied GST ITC claims.
Case Title: Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex Versus Union Of India
The Kerala High Court has held that proceedings under section 73 cannot be initiated for splitting Integrated Goods & Service Tax (IGST) amount towards Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) and State Goods & Service Tax (SGST) through GSTR 3B.
Case Title: Pinnacle Vehicles And Services Private Limited Versus Joint Commissioner
The Single bench of the Kerala High Court has referred the issue of whether separate notification for cross-empowerment of state officials under GST Act is required to the division bench.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that a reading of Section 6(1) of the CGST Act makes it clear that the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be proper officers for the purposes of the Act, subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify.
Case Title: Baiju George Versus CGST
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the writ petition challenging GST assessment order after 4 years.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that though Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not fix any period of limitation for the filing of a writ petition, it is settled law that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Carona Electricals Through Its Proprietor Prabhat Kadyan Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr
The Delhi High Court has quashed the show cause notice and order which were uploaded on the GST Portal under “view additional notice tab”.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice J. Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the architecture of the Goods and Services Tax portal was duly modified and amended and now all notices are available to be viewed under the “General Notices” tab also. However, this modification was brought about only on 16 January 2024. The SCN and order precede that date.
Case Title: HCL Infosystems Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of State Tax & Anr
The Delhi High Court has quashed the show cause notice issued to HCL Infosystems and held that amalgamating company and transactions undertaken cannot be subject to GST.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that Section 87 essentially seeks to preserve and identify the transactions which may have occurred between two or more companies which ultimately amalgamate and merge.
Case Title: Aroh Foundation Versus Additional Commissioner, Adjudication Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, DGGSTI
The Delhi High Court has held that the activities undertaken by charitable institutions prima facie not covered within ‘supply’ under CGST Act.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Tax, GST Delhi East Versus A S P Metal Industries
The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Central Tax, GST Delhi East Versus A S P Metal Industries has held that the case of unaccounted manufacture and clearance was built on sketchy evidence without any concrete corroboration and whatever evidence formed basis of the case of the Revenue fell short of the minimum requirement of credible case of clandestine removal.
The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja and Justice Yashwant Varma has observed that mere fact that the respondent-assessee agreed to deposit the duty amount to avoid any kind of litigation, itself cannot be held to be the basis for confirming the duty demand against the assessee.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Central GST & Central Versus M/S V.S Industries
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the GST Department citing the monetary limit below Rs. 2 Crores.
The bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta has observed that as per the new Litigation Policy dated 06.08.2024, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has fixed the monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the CESTAT, High Court and Supreme Court.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: L and T PES JV Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
The 𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐇igh 𝐂ourt has 𝐮𝐩𝐡e𝐥𝐝 the 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐞 GST Payment 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 in the case of L and T PES JV Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax.
The bench of Justice P.Sam Koshy and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty has observed that since the place of supply is determined depending on the proportion of work executed by L&T & PES and location of supplier in both the States, it falls under the category of intra-state supply under Section 8 of the IGST Act with respect to the proportion of works executed in respective States by the contractors registered in the respective States. Now it is clear that the nature of supply is intra- state supply in proportion to the works carried out in each State. When the nature of supply is intra-state, the tax liability shall be discharged individually in each State to the extent of proportion of the works executed.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Excellent Polycon Private Limited -Vs- The State Tax Officer
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the penalty for transporting goods after e-way bill expiry as there was lack of intention of GST evasion.
The bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj has observed that procedural compliance under the GST framework is crucial, penalties imposed purely for procedural lapses without evidence of tax evasion or malicious intent may not serve the legislative intent.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of J.S.B. Trading Co. versus State of Punjab has held that once matter is dropped at ASMT-10 Level, no further proceedings can be initiated under Section 74 Of GST Act.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharama and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that a Proper Officer cannot take contradictory views in DRC-01A and ASMT-12. Accepting the taxpayer’s response in ASMT-12 signifies that the matter is resolved. Once proceedings are dropped under Section 61, reissuing notices for the same matter under Section 74 breaches procedural fairness.
Rajasthan High Court
The Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s Barminco Indian Underground Mining Services LLP Versus Deputy Commissioner has dismissed writ petition challenging GST on mining services at the stage of show cause notice.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas has it is not a case where the authority concerned lacks jurisdiction. It is not a case where mala fides have been alleged. In the absence of there being a case of violation of principles of natural justice.
Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Ford India Private Limited Versus The Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST)
The Madras High Court has upheld the pre-deposit made through electronic credit ledger by Ford India.
Case Title: Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries Versus The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) (FAC)
The Madras High Court while citing the Finance Act, 2024 held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) is permissible when GST returns are filed on or before 30th November 2021 for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21.
Case Title: M/s.SPK and Co Versus The State Tax Officer
The Madras High Court has held that the limitation period for challenging GST assessment order starts ticking from the date of rectification application rejection.
Case Title: M/s.ARS Steels and Alloy International Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer
The Madras High Court in the case of M/s.ARS Steels and Alloy International Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST cannot be claimed on t-shirts and gold coins purchased for sales promotional activity.
The bench of Justice C.Saravanan has observed that as per Section 17(5) of the respective GST enactments, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16 and sub- section (1) of section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the supplies as stipulated in sub-clause (a) to (i) of Section 17 (5) of the respective GST enactments. Sub-clause (h) to Section 17(5) of the respective GST enactments makes it clear that no input tax credit shall be available in respect of the goods lost, stolen, destroyed, written off or disposed of by way of gift or free samples.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: LJ- Victoria Properties Private Limited Versus UOI
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 65 of the SGST Act would be applicable for conducting the audit of a financial year when a person was registered, although, on the date of ordering the audit, such a person ceases to be registered voluntarily.
Case Title: Kuber Health Food And Allied Services Pvt. Ltd Versus UOI
The Bombay High court has held that the benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) cannot be denied merely for mentioning higher figures in application by way of abundant caution.
Case Title: L & T IHI Consortium Versus UOI
The Bombay High Court has ruled that denying (Input Tax Credit) ITC on advance receipts would create inconsistency and disrupt the harmonious functioning of GST provisions.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain has interpreted Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, determining that it encompasses “supplies agreed to be made” within the definition of supply. The advance payments received by the petitioner are subject to GST, thereby expanding the definition of a taxable supply.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Limited Versus Union of India
The Bombay High Court has held that the writ petition challenging SCN under tax law is not maintainable unless it demonstrates a clear violation of jurisdiction, fundamental rights, or natural justice.
Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited Versus State of Bihar
The Patna High Court has upheld the notification for extension for issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) under section 73 of GST Act. However, the assessment orders were quashed citing the lack of notice of personal hearing.
