The 100 Most Significant GST Judgments – Part III 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 third part.
Table of Contents
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Subhana Fashion Versus Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax
The Delhi High Court has held that non-payment of dues for a period of three months is not a prescribed ground for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration.
Case Title: Axa France Vie-India Versus UOI
The Delhi High Court has quashed the demand order for non-payment of Integrated Goods And Service Tax (IGST) on reinsurance services citing GST Council Recommendation.
Case Title: Infiniti Retail Limited Versus Union Of India
The Delhi High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department cannot adjudicate show cause notice (SCN) based on audit reports.
Case title: Sadhna Kohli V/S Sales Tax Officer
The Delhi High court while setting aside the two orders issued under section 73 of the GST Act and granting time to file reply the cases, involving a total demand of about Rs. 2 crore, held that at the material time of issuance of the Show Cause Notice (SCN), the tab ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ was not placed in a position which would invite the taxpayer’s attention to the tab.
Case Title: Samir Karwa Vs Union of India
The Bombay High Court directed the Commissioner GST and CX to initiate inquiry and fix the accountability and responsibility for non-renewal of fixed deposits arising our of seized cash after the expiry of 10 years and take appropriate action against the persons who are involved in the negligence including recovery of the interest from the salary/retirement benefits of the person found responsible.
Case Title: Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. V/S Principal Commissioner, Cgst Commissionerate, Meerut And Ors
In a bunch of 8 petitions defended by the State & Central GST, Delhi High Court sets aside to the extent the orders that disallow debit from the respective Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of assessees in excess of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available in the ECL.
Case Title: Association Of Power Producers V/S Solar Energy Corporation Of India Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has held that Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (SECI) cannot issue any binding clarification as to the chargeability of the Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) service to GST.
The Delhi High Court has quashed GST penalty proceedings initiated by dept. on secondment arrangements.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Pepperfry Limited Versus UOI
A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain has allowed Pepperfry to file a reply to GST Show Cause Notice subject to the cost of Rs. 50K.
Case Title: Sai Service Private Limited Versus Union Of India
The Goa bench of Bombay High Court has held that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Circular clarifying Input Tax Credit (ITC) availability on demo vehicles prevails over order passed by the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR).
Case Title: Mishal J Shah HUF Versus State of Maharashtra & ors.
The Bombay High Court has issued contempt notice to state tax officer for illegal arrest of a businessman who was allegedly involved in wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 9.5 crores.
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that as per the Arrest Memo the authorisation for this arrest was obtained on 20 December 2024 itself and the Petitioner Mishal J Shah was arrested at 7.55 am on 20 December 2024 itself, amounts to interference with the administration of justice, and consequently, might amount to a Contempt of Court.
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.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Versus Union of India
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. challenging constitutional validity of clauses (c) & (d) Of Section 17(5) of CGST Act. Clauses (c) & (d) Of Section 17(5) of CGST Act relates to works contract services and goods and services received for construction of immovable property respectively.
Case Title: Badal Gour Versus UOI
The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted bail to accused of passing unauthorised Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 63.37 crores based on fake bills.
The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha has observed that no incriminating has been recovered at the instance of the present applicant and the applicant was not involved in any of the acts as alleged against him consciously or otherwise and the applicant is a transgender person, the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.08.2024.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Bar Code India Limited Versus Union of India and others
The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bar Code India Limited Versus Union of India held that the GST Number of purchasers in GSTR-1 return cannot be rectified after expiry of the limitation period.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that If there is a correction in the corresponding GSTR-1 within the timeline, ITC would be permissible in terms of the timeline specified in Section 64 of the Act, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to rectify the return beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the GST Act.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jatinder Menro Versus State of Punjab granted anticipatory bail to accused uploading fake bills on GST Portal and wrongfully claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 25 Crores.
The bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill has observed that the allegations as in the complaint under Section 132 of CGST Act and in the FIR are more or less overlapping and also that the allegations pertaining to raising of false bills for showing false transactions would specifically be covered under offences under CGST and also that the petitioners have remained behind bars for a substantial period in respect of a complaint under Section 132 of CGST Act and neither the petitioners are alleged to been on the run during these five years nor the police had chosen to arrest them ever since lodging of the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Case Title: M/s BMW India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for the State of Haryana and another
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while quashing the ruling given by Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) held that BMW is entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) on demo vehicles.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that Circular No.231/25-HGST/2024/GST-II (CBIC Circular No.231/25/2024- GST, dated 11.09.2024), dated 13th September 2024 discussed the availability of Input Tax Credit on demo vehicles, which are motor vehicles for transportation of passengers having approved seating capacity of not more than 13 persons in terms of clause (a) of section 17(5) of Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
Tripura High Court
Case Title: M/s Sterlite Power Transmission Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST
The Tripura High Court has upheld the order rejecting the refund claim of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Biswajit Palit has observed that the claim for refund is not made out in terms of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act as none of the enumerated conditions are made out. Petitioner under a misconception of law has sought refund of the accumulated ITC in its electronic credit ledger when there has been no duplication of payment of tax for any tax period. It is up to the petitioner to utilize the unutilized ITC for future tax liabilities.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: NHPC Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST and Ors.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court was of the prima facie view that the department cannot impose GST on free electricity provided by NHPC.
Case Title: M/s A.M. Enterprises V/S State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the GST department should wait for investigation to be completed before imposing a drastic penalty of GST registration cancellation.
Case Title: M/s R. T. Pharma versus Union of India & Ors.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that GSTR-9 return filed prior to issuance of amnesty notification waiving late fee cannot be a reason to deny notification benefits.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan has observed that it would be unjust to deny the benefit to the petitioner merely because the petitioner filed the return prior to the issuance of the amnesty notification dated 31.03.2023, confined to amnesty only to those who filed the return between 01.04.2023 and 30.06.2023.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s. Sugna Sponge & Power Private Limited Versus The Superintendent of Central Tax
The Andhra Pradesh High Court while commenting that technology, instead of assisting the cause of justice, is actually hindering it, directed the GST Dept. to ensure absence of space constraint, in recording reasons at GST portal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/S Future Consumer Limited Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the GST order cannot be challenged citing no personal hearing if hearing was not requested after receipt of Show Cause Notice (SCN).
Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S. SANCE LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus UOI
The Kerala High Court has declared the Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rules As Ultra Vires Section 16 Of IGST Act.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Udit Tibrewal Versus State Of Assam
The Gauhati High Court has held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73 [1] of the Central Act as well as the State Act.
Read More: Top 100 GST Judgments Of 2024 – PART – II
