RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
X’SS Beverage Co. Versus State of Assam (W.P(C) NO. 5347/2022) (Guwahati High Court)
The Petitioner, manufactures and sells carbonated fruit drinks and ready-to-serve fruit drinks. They argued that these drinks, which meet FSSAI’s specifications (including over 10% fruit juice content), should be considered fruit beverages. The petitioner provided evidence, including test reports, showing the products comply with the required standards.
The department argued that the drinks, containing carbonated water and sugar, should be taxed at 28% under a different classification. However, the Hon’ble High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, stating that these products should be taxed at the 12% rate as fruit juice-based drinks, dismissing the department’s claim.
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that carbonated fruit pulp and juice-based drinks are subject to a 12% GST rate, not 28%, as they are not “akin” to water. It was further held that these drinks fall under Tariff Item 2202 99 20 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and are classified as “fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks” in Schedule-II under Notification No. 1 of 2017 (Integrated Tax Rate).
Sam Ventures v. Assistant Commissioner {W.P.(C) 9292/2024 & CM APPL. 38103/2024 (Stay)} (Delhi High Court)
The Respondent have issued summon to the Petitioner which were sent to an unregistered email address (“samventures497@gmail.com”) instead of the correct one that was listed on the GSTN portal (“skpllb2@gmail.com”). The Hon’ble High Court ruled that this failure to use the correct email rendered the Appellate Authority’s order invalid. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the whole proceeding, stating that the summons was sent to an incorrect email address which was not registered with the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN). It was further observed that that the respondent failed to provide evidence, such as a Speed Post certificate or a tracking report, to prove that the summons was properly served.
Arrow Advertising India Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner and Others (Writ No: 5493/2025) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner challenged the assessment order, issued in Form GST DRC-07 for the 2019-20 and 2020-21, arguing that the order lacked the required DIN. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the GST assessment order because it lacked a (Document Identification Number- DIN). Further, it was stated that the absence of a DIN undermines the validity of GST proceedings. Reliance was placed upon Supreme Court’s ruling in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India, which stated that an order without a DIN is invalid, and consequently the Hon’ble High Court set aside the assessment order. The Assistant Commissioners were allowed to issue a fresh assessment with a DIN, with the period from the original order’s date to the new order’s receipt excluded for limitation purposes.
The Hon’ble High Court set aside the GST demand order against the Petitioner, citing a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court ruled that the adjudicating authority had failed to provide a personal hearing, despite the taxpayer’s request. Further it was held that the failure to provide a hearing violated Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which mandates a personal hearing if requested. The court quashed the demand order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, ensuring a personal hearing is granted. The authority was directed to complete the process within 12 weeks, ensuring adherence to natural justice.
JSD Traders LLP Vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST & Anr. {W.P.(C) 2608/2025} (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order pursuant to which the Goods and Services Tax registration of the writ petitioner has come to be cancelled with retrospective effect from 09 November 2017. The Hon’ble High Court has quashed retrospective GST registration cancellations citing lack of reasons in Show Cause Notice (SCN). It was also observed that neither the SCN nor the final order have mentioned any substantive basis on which the respondent would have formed the opinion that Section 29(2)(e) was violated.
Gurunanak Arecanut Traders Versus Commercial Tax and Another (Writ Tax No. – 1177 Of 2022) (Allahabad High Court)
Petitioner, a registered dealer, sold 400 bags of Arecanut, but the goods in transit lacked the required e-way bill. During a verification, it was found that the goods were “processed Arecanut”, which are taxable @ 18%, not @ 5% rate as declared by the Petitioner. As a result, the goods were detained, and a penalty was imposed.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the mismatch in the description of goods and the absence of an e-way bill indicate an intention to evade taxes. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the e-way bill must be generated before goods were made to be in transit, and its subsequent generation did not absolve the petitioner of responsibility. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming that carrying an e-way bill was mandatory for the movement of goods.
REMINDER!!! LAST DATE TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF AMNESTY SCHEME
Waiver Scheme Under Section 128A – Amnesty Scheme
To ease tax disputes, the GST Council has introduced a waiver of interest and penalties on demand notices or orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 (excluding cases involving fraud or willful misstatement). To benefit from this waiver, taxpayers must pay the full tax amount by March 31, 2025
The procedural guidelines for this waiver, under Rule 164 of the CGST Rules, were notified on October 8, 2024. Taxpayers must apply through Form GST SPL-01 (for demand orders) or Form GST SPL-02 (for notices) on the common portal by March 31, 2025.
The Taxpayers should ensure they pay the demanded tax by the deadline to avail of the waiver. Payments can be made via the “payment towards demand” option (for demand orders) or Form GST DRC-03 (for notices). If already paid via Form GST DRC-03, link it to the demand order using Form GST DRC-03A.
Implementation of Biometric-Based Aadhaar Authentication and Document Verification for GST registration applicants in Uttar Pradesh. 1. Amendment to CGST Rules: Rule 8 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has been amended to allow biometric-based Aadhaar authentication, along with photograph capture and document verification, for applicants identified based on risk parameters. 2. Implementation Timeline: The new system was rolled out in Uttar Pradesh on March 15, 2025. 3. Authentication Process: After submitting Form GST REG-01, applicants receive an email with: o A link for OTP-based Aadhaar Authentication, or o A link for appointment booking at a GST Suvidha Kendra (GSK) for biometric authentication and document verification. 4. Appointment Requirement: Applicants who receive the appointment link must schedule a visit to a designated GST Suvidha Kendra (GSK) for verification, with slots available from March 18, 2025. 5. Verification at GSK: Applicants must bring: o A copy of the appointment confirmation email, o Jurisdiction details from the intimation email, o Original Aadhaar and PAN cards, o Original documents uploaded during application submission. 6. Completion of Process: Biometric authentication and document verification are conducted at the GSK. Application Reference Numbers (ARNs) will be generated once this process is completed. 7. Operational Timings: The working hours of GSKs will be as per the state administration’s guidelines. This advisory informs taxpayers in Uttar Pradesh about the new biometric authentication system for GST registration, enhancing security and reducing fraudulent registrations.
|
Disclaimer: Pursuant to the Bar Council of India rules, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. You, the reader acknowledges that there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this newsletter. The information provided in this newsletter is solely available at your request and is for informational purposes only, it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advisement. We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the reader relying on material/ information provided in the newsletter. In cases where the reader has any legal issues, he/she must in all cases seek independent legal advice. Any information obtained or materials used from this newsletter is completely at the reader’s volition and any transmission, receiptor use of the contents of this newsletter would not create any lawyer-client relationship.