Issue No. April/2025/03

RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST

 Ajnara Realtech v State of UP, (2025) 28 Centax 373 (All.)

The Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 74 but in the said SCN no ingredient pertaining to Section 74 was satisfied, due to which writ was filed challenging the impugned SCN. The Hon’ble High Court observed that as there was no allegation of fraud or any willful-misstatement and/or suppression of material facts in the Show Cause Notice, therefore impugned SCN cannot be sustained. Consequently the impugned SCN and Order passed consequent to the SCN was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court.

Mansi Overseas v Principal Commissioner, (2025) 28 Centax 266 (Del.)

The Revenue have freezed the bank account of the Petitioner under Section 83, due to which the Petitioner have approached the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the Revenue have been unable to demonstrate any reasonable apprehension that the writ petitioner herein was at risk of defaulting on payment of any demands that may come to be imposed. On the contrary, the only reasons adduced by the respondents for the initiation of Section 83 proceedings was that the writ petitioner had failed to file any response to the DRC-01 or the SCN & have not attended the hearing of the adjudicating authority and allegedly refused to cooperate with the Revenue. Further, it was observed that the production of cogent and credible material was necessary to form an opinion that a provisional attachment is necessary and essential for the purposes of securing the interests of government revenue. It cannot be justified on the basis of vague apprehensions or a failure to cooperate or provide responses to notices. Therefore, the actions of the Revenue were not sustained consequently the Writ was allowed.

1. Kumaresan v Assistant Commissioner, (2025) 28 Centax 293 (Mad.)

 In present facts of the case, the Petitioner’s bank account was frozen pursuant to ex-parte GST order without sufficient opportunity to present his matter. The Hon’ble High Court disposed the Petition by directing the Petitioner to first exhaust the statutory remedy available under law. Further, it was observed that the petitioner shall prefer an appeal together with necessary pre-deposit within one month & the Appellate Commissioner shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law.

Siemens Ltd. v Sales Tax Officer, (2025) 26 Centax 69 (Del.)

The Petitioner was aggrieved by two orders dated 27 April 2024 passed by the Respondents pertaining to the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 with identical issues and have also been passed by the same officer albeit by way of separate orders. It was observed that there cannot be two competing or conflicting orders pertaining to the same tax period. Further, it was observed that the confirmed demand with respect to ITC availed from suppliers whose GST registration came to be subsequently cancelled can always be assailed by the petitioner by way of an appeal.

Tech-Civil Material Testing Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant Commissioner, (2025) 28 Centax 341 (Mad.)

In present facts of the case, respondent-department cancelled GST registration of petitioner-assessee on ground of non-filing of returns for six months, however, petitioner-assessee submitted that one of company’s directors passed away making it difficult for petitioner-assessee to run business. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the Consultant engaged by the petitioner has wrongly advised the petitioner that there is no necessity to file returns if there is no business activities, the petitioner had failed to file their returns continuously for a period of 6 months. The reason provided for non-filing of returns and in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to be genuine.

Trilok Enterprises v Principal Commissioner, (2025) 28 Centax 317 (Del.)

 In present facts of the case, the writ was filed wherein Petitioner was principally aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to allow its application for revocation of an order in terms of which its GST registration has been cancelled. It was observed that a reading of the order passed on the application for revocation and when the same is compared with the original notice, as well as the order of cancellation, it was apparent that the petitioner was confronted with altogether new allegations. The order rejecting the application for revocation was based on grounds which do not even find mention in the original SCN or the order pursuant to which its registration had been cancelled. Consequently, the writ was allowed.

Solvi Enterprises v Additional Commissioner, WRIT TAX No. 1287 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court)

In present facts of the case, the Petitioner was subjected to proceedings under Section 74. The Petitioner contended that the date of transaction in question was of 06.12.2018 and whereas the registration of the selling dealer has been cancelled with effect from 29.01.2020. Further, it was contended that the transaction in question was fully covered by the statutory documents prescribed under the Act. He further submits that the selling dealer filed its return therefore, GSTR-2A was auto generated, showing the transaction are genuine.