In this News Letter 2nd Edition of May 2025, you’ll find:
1. Ratio of Latest Judgements
2. Instructions Issued By CBIC
3. GST Compliances Due Dates
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers v Union of India, (Uttarakhand High Court, Writ Petition (MB) No. 103 of 2025)
Petitioner challenged the Show Cause and Order issued for violation of Rule 96(10) in the present Writ Petition. The Hon’ble High Court granted relief to the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Sance Laboratories (P.) Ltd. [(2024) 23 Centax 435 (Ker.) = 2024 (91) G.S.T.L. 245] and Notification No. 20/2024 – CENTRAL TAX [G.S.R. 626(E)/F. NO. CBIC-20006/20/2023-GST], Dated 8-10-2024 wherein it was held that the provision of rule 96(10) of CGST Rule, 2017 has been omitted unconditionally, without a saving clause in favour of the pending proceedings, therefore all actions from the date of such omission of the rule must stop. There was no scope for the Revenue to pass any order by invoking the provisions of rule 96(10) of CGST Rule, 2017 since the rule was omitted on 8th October 2024. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed and the Order was quashed.
Himalaya Wellness Company v. Union of India & Ors. (Himachal Pradesh High Court, CWP No. 9239/2024)
Petitioner challenged the show cause notice proposing GST demand of ₹4.37 crores. The Petitioner contended that Show Cause Notice was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondents argued the petition was premature, as alternate statutory remedies under the CGST/SGST Act existed. High Court further observed that the Petitioner have received detailed show cause notice running into 15 pages, containing extensive details that how respondent authorities arrived at a conclusion which was sufficient enough to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, Writ petition was dismissed for not being maintainable due to the availability of alternate remedy.
Ratio: Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when alternate statutory remedies are available unless exceptional conditions exist.
Kuddus Ali v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST (Calcutta High Court, WPA 6004/2025)
Petitioner challenged the Order in DRC-07 as the Revenue authorities purported to make recovery of dues payable by the petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Section 75(12) without prior adjudication or show cause notice under Section 73/74. Petitioner contended that without adjudication under Section 73/74 and issuance of a proper SCN, the recovery was illegal. However, in the instant facts of the case the petitioner was subjected to proceedings under Section 61 i.e. under ASMT-10 and demand of tax and interest were found to be payable by the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court held that Section 75(12) must be read with its explanation and Section 75(12) doesn’t permit recovery without adjudication for amounts already declared in returns. The Court also observed that the respondents cannot invoke the provisions of Section 75(12), nor the respondents can claim that the demands made by the respondents are based on admission made by the petitioner in his Monthly and Annual Returns. As per Section 61(3), if the explanation furnished by the petitioner is found unacceptable there is no other option but to initiate appropriate action under the provisions of Section 65 or 66 or 67 or 73 or 74 of GST Act and not directly under Section 75(12) of GST Act. Consequently, the Notice pertaining to recovery was quashed.
Rishi Shangari v. Union of India & Ors. (Jharkhand High Court, W.P.(T) No. 523/2023)
Recovery proceedings cannot be initiated directly against the deceased son as deceased’s son had obtained a fresh GST registration. Since the Respondent Authorities have failed to show any material / evidence that petitioner was continuing the business in the name of his father’s proprietary concern after his father’s death. The Hon’ble High Court held that order for recovery is irrational and based on no evidence and thus cannot be sustained.
Shri Ram Stone Works & Others v. State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court, W.P.(T) No. 5535/2024 & batch cases)
The Hon’ble High Court held that Notice under Section 61 cannot be issued merely on basis of the returns filed under the Act, quoted lower market price than the actual market price. The Hon’ble High Court observed that notices issued comparing the particulars at which Petitioners have sold their goods with that of prevalent market price, is wholly without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Section 61 of the Act. Unless transactions of sale are shown to be sham transactions or the mere fact that the goods were sold at a concessional rate/rate less than market price would not entitle the Revenue Authorities to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser as transaction value.
M/s Vibhuti Tyres v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, Writ Tax No. 2055/2025)
Tax demand under the order cannot exceeded the amount proposed in the show cause notice. The SCN demanded ₹8.81 lakh but the final order raised demand to ₹32.97 lakh. The Hon’ble High Court held that the action of the Revenue was in contrary to Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, which limits final demand to the amount specified in the SCN. Accordingly, the writ was allowed, and the order was quashed as the Order was in violation of section 75(7) of the Act.
Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. v Additional Commissioner, (2025) 30 Centax 157 (Del.)
Revenue issued a Show Cause to the petitioner regarding rate of tax on the products of petitioner whether at 12% or 18%. The detailed reply was filed by the Petitioner which was not all considered by the revenue authority and demand order was passed mentioning that no reply has been filed by the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court held that a substantial demand of more than Rs.10 crores has been raised without considering the stand of the Petitioner, whereas the reply filed by petitioner has been completely ignored by the adjudication authority before passing the impugned order. Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for fresh hearing.
INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY CBIC
Instruction No. 04/2025-GST dated 02/05/2025 (Grievance Redressal Mechanism for processing of application for GST registration):
CBIC had earlier issued Instruction No. 03/2025-GST dated 17/04/2025 for processing of GST registration application. Any applicant whose Application Reference Number (ARN) has been assigned to Central Jurisdiction and who has a grievance in respect of any query raised in contravention of the said instructions, regarding grounds of rejection of application etc. may approach the jurisdictional Zonal Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner.
To provide a quick and effective grievance redressal mechanism to applicants, the following instructions have been issued.
- Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner of CGST Zones may publicize an email address on which the applicants can raise their grievances. Wide publicity may be given to this email id.
- The applicants may send grievances containing ARN details, jurisdiction details (Centre/State) and issue in brief on that email address.
- In case where grievance received pertains to State Jurisdiction, the office of Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner shall forward the same to the concerned State jurisdiction and a copy endorsed to the GST Council Secretariat.
- Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner may ensure timely resolution of grievances received by them and intimate the applicants regarding the same. In case where queries raised by the officer are found to be proper, the applicants may be suitably advised.
- Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner may submit a monthly report on the status of grievance redressal to DGGST who would compile the same and put up for perusal of the Board.
Instruction No. 05/2025-GST dated 02/05/2025 (Timely production of records/information for audit):
CBIC issued instructions to Principal Chief Commissioners / Chief Commissioners of the Central Tax / All the Principal Director Generals/Director Generals to ensure timely and full cooperation with the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) audit teams. The C&AG’s Audit Report No. 7 of 2024 highlighted cases of non- or partial production of records by GST field formations. All officers are to be instructed to promptly provide all required documents/information to audit teams. If records are with taxpayers, officers must coordinate with them and ensure necessary follow-ups. This directive is in line with Article 149 of the Constitution and has been approved by the CBIC Chairman.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN JUNE 2025 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (May 2025) June 20th, 2025 | GSTR-3B (Apr-June, 2025)-Jul 22nd, 24th, 2025 | GSTR-5 (Apr 2025) June 13th, 2025 | GSTR-5A (Apr, 2025) June 20th, 2025 |
GSTR-1 (May,2025) June 11th, 2025 | GSTR-1 (Apr-June, 2025) Jul 13th, 2025 | GSTR-6 (Apr 2025)
June 13th, 2025 | GSTR-7 (Apr 2025)
June10th, 2025 |
IFF (Optional) (Apr ,2025) June 13th, 2025 | CMP-08 (Apr-June, 2025) Jul 18th, 2025 | GSTR-8 (Apr, 2025)
June 10th, 2025 | RFD-10 2 years from the last day of the quarter in which supply was received |
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, receptor use of the contents of this newsletter would not create any lawyer-client relationship.