In this News Letter 2nd Edition of August 2025, you’ll find:
1.Ratio of Latest Judgements
2.GST News & Update
3.GST Compliances Due Dates
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, Writ Tax No. 3608 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Noida passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The writ petition was filed on 03.07.2025 i.e. much beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act which allows filing of appeal within three months extendable by only one further month if sufficient cause is shown. The Court noted that the impugned order had been duly served on the petitioner via registered email, a mode of service validly recognized under Section 169 of the Act and hence the period of limitation commenced from that date itself. The contention of the petitioner that service was not affected by post was rejected.
The Hon’ble Bench referred to Singh Enterprises (2008) 3 SCC 70, Hongo India (2009) 5 SCC 791 and Glaxo Smith Kline (2020) 19 SCC 681, reiterated that once a special statute prescribes a fixed limitation period with a maximum condonable extension, neither Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can extend the period further. Several High Courts, including Rajasthan, Delhi and Allahabad, have consistently applied this principle. The Court further clarified that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory appellate remedy, except in rare cases of gross violation of natural justice or patent illegality, which were not present in this case.
Accordingly, the Court held that the present writ petition, filed after expiry of limitation and without any plausible explanation, was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed in limine.
Sikha Borgohain v. Union of India and Ors., Case No: WP(C)/4535/2025 (Gauhati High Court)
The Petitioner who is the daughter of the deceased filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 29, 2024 and also a summary order dated August 30, 2024, which imposed an outstanding tax liability of Rs. 39,82,924/- along with interest and penalties on her late father.
A show cause notice was issued on May 28, 2024 for the tax period of April 2019 to March 2020 addressed to the deceased. The petitioner informed the authorities of her father’s death but did not receive a reply. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the authorities were unaware of the death because the petitioner continued to file returns on behalf of the deceased. The court ruled that since the SCN and the subsequent order were issued to a deceased person, the proceedings were a nullity. Consequently, the SCN dated May 28, 2024 and the order dated August 29, 2024 were both set aside and quashed.
Despite quashing the orders, the court granted the respondent authorities the liberty to issue a fresh SCN to the legal representatives of the deceased in accordance with Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. The court also directed that the period from the date of the original notice until a certified copy of the court’s order is served upon the respondent No. 6 would be excluded when computing the period of limitation.
Kesarwani Traders v. State of UP and 3 Others, WRIT TAX No. 1235 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an Order dated December 24, 2024, an impugned Notice dated September 7, 2022 and an Order dated November 17, 2023 along with a recovery notice (DRC-07). The petitioner, a registered dealer, was engaged in the business of purchasing and selling MS TMT bars. The dispute arose from a “Bill to Ship to” transaction where the petitioner placed an order with an entity who in-turn arranged for the supply from Raipur.
The goods were intercepted and checked in transit, and the mobile squad in Chhattisgarh stamped the e-Way bill. Despite this, a proceeding under Section 74 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act was initiated against the petitioner, alleging a “paper transaction” because the supplier’s registration was later cancelled.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the movement of goods was not disputed, and the transaction was supported by valid documents including the tax invoice and e-Way bill which were also intercepted and stamped. The court further observed that the cancellation of the selling dealer’s registration occurred subsequent to the date of the transaction. Therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner as the seller had a valid registration on the date of the transaction. The court found that the authorities failed to provide any contradictory material to rebut the petitioner’s claims. Based on these facts and observations, the court concluded that the impugned orders could not be sustained in the eyes of law and were therefore quashed. The writ petition was consequently allowed.
Lupin Limited v Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO.610 OF 2024 (Bombay High Court)
The Hon’ble High Court considered the correct interpretation of Sections 54 and 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), specifically concerning the period for which interest is payable when a refund is sanctioned on appeal.
The petitioner, had filed two refund applications for February and May 2022 which were partially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. On appeal, the Appellate Authority sanctioned the full amount, prompting the petitioner to seek interest on the delayed refund. The Revenue argued that interest should only accrue from a fresh application filed after the appellate order.
The court, however, rejected this argument. It interpreted Section 56 and its explanation to mean that an appellate order is deemed to be an order passed by the proper officer. Therefore, the interest must be calculated from the original application date. The court’s interpretation was that if a refund is not issued within 60 days of the first application, it shall carry a 6% interest. If a refund is subsequently sanctioned by an appellate authority and not disbursed within 60 days of the new application, a higher interest rate of 9% shall apply for that period.
The Hon’ble High Court relied upon Judgments from the Delhi and Telangana High Courts, and it was held that proviso to Section 56 does not replace the main clause but rather enhances the interest rate for the period after the appellate order. The court quashed the impugned order-in-appeal and directed the respondents to pay the applicable interest amounts to the Petitioner.
Eagle Security & Personnel Services v. Union of India and Ors. Writ Petition NO.1687 OF 2024 (Bombay High Court)
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Notification No. 29 of 2018 (amending Notification No. 13 of 2017) and Sections 17(2) and 17(3) of the CGST Act, which impose the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on security services provided by entities other than a body corporate. The petitioner argued that this discriminates against proprietors, making them uncompetitive by denying them Input Tax Credit (ITC) on their services, thereby violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The Hon’ble High Court rejected the petitioner’s challenge. It observed that the classification between a body corporate and a non-body corporate is a reasonable distinction which is often seen in fiscal laws. The court reasoned that since the petitioner was a proprietorship, all similar entities are treated equally, thus upholding the principle of equality under Article 14. The court also held that a taxing statute is not per se a restriction on the freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) and that the competitiveness of a business model is not a ground to challenge the vires of a law.
The court highlighted that the right to claim ITC is a statutory right, not an absolute one, and is subject to the conditions and restrictions laid down in the CGST Act. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that under the RCM, the recipient of the service pays
the tax and can claim the credit, which fulfills the GST objective of a seamless transfer of credit. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions and the notification.
Chandrasekaran, Proprietor, Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Anr., W.P.No.30638 of 2025 (Madras High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner for challenging an order to unfreeze his bank account. The petitioner received a show cause notice on May 22, 2024, but his consultant filed an irrelevant reply which led to the first respondent passing the impugned order.
The Hon’ble Court noted that the petitioner’s business had come to a standstill and that several workers were jobless due to the freezing of his bank account. The court took a lenient view, acknowledging that such situations frequently arise due to the “ill-advice of consultants who are not qualified persons.”
The court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration, provided the petitioner pays 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. The court also observed that since the impugned order had been set aside, the attachment on the bank account could not survive. Consequently, the court directed the first respondent to instruct the concerned bank to immediately de-freeze the petitioner’s bank account upon production of a copy of the order. The Hon’ble High Court also issued a general observation urging the department to issue a circular advising assessees to engage only qualified consultants to avoid similar issues in the future.
GST NEWS & UPDATES
NexGen Reforms in GST
Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi during his ‘address to the nation from the ramparts of Red Fort’ on the occasion of the 79th Independence Day, underscored that GST has been a landmark reform since its implementation in 2017, and now further strengthening is needed for building an Atmanirbhar Bharat. The Ministry of Finance same day issued a ‘Press Release’ highlights the Government’s intent to bring Next-Generation Reforms in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
The Central Government has identified three pillars for the reform process: (i) Structural
Reforms, (ii) Rate Rationalisation and (iii) Ease of Living. The proposal pertaining to
Rate Rationalisation has also been approved by the Group of Ministers (GoM) for further deliberations and the consideration by GST Council on 3rd and 4th September 2025 so that the actual benefit is available to the consumers before Diwali.
While the announcement of rate rationalisation is undoubtedly a welcome and much-needed step which was under consideration for the last many years, the present focus on this single pillar raises certain concerns. Rate rationalisation would probably simplify the structure, reduce slabs and make essential as well as aspirational goods more affordable but this very important tool available for fiscal control in the economy of the country shall be loosened and may enhance the problem of inverted duty in many sectors. Rate rationalisation will also provide predictability and stability in the tax system, thereby benefitting the common man, middle class, women, students, and farmers. However, what about the other two pillars—structural reforms and ease of living (or ease of business)?
Structural reforms such as resolving classification disputes, ensuring predictability and providing clarity on input tax credit accumulation are equally vital for strengthening GST. Similarly, ease of living measures like seamless registration, pre-filled returns and faster & smoother refunds, if not implemented earnestly will continue to trouble taxpayers and especially small businesses which are the backbone of the economy.
It must also be underlined that the effectiveness of these proposed reforms would remain limited unless certain fundamental issues are addressed. First, constitution of GST Tribunals is long overdue, and without this judicial forum, dispute resolution remains a serious challenge. Second, persistent technical glitches coupled with non-adherence of the legal provisions in the GST Common Portal undermine the efficiency of compliance and frustrate taxpayers. Third, accountability of the responsible authorities at each level must be ensured. Reforms for the sake of reform just on paper cannot succeed without effective implementation and monitoring. The benefit of reduction in tax rates must reach the ultimate consumer for which anti-profiting provisions may be robustly applied. Without these being addressed the Next Gen Reforms in GST would just be hollow and of no credibility.
Therefore, while the step towards rate rationalisation is a very good move, the Government must equally prioritise structural reforms and ease of living to truly realise the vision of a simple, transparent and robust GST framework. Only a balanced approach across all three pillars, coupled with institutional strengthening, technological efficiency and accountability can make GST a truly growth-oriented and citizen-friendly tax regime
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN SEPTEMBER 2025 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Aug 2025) Sep 20th, 2025
| GSTR-3B (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 22nd, 24th, 2025
| GSTR-5 (Aug, 2025) Sep 13th, 2025
| GSTR-5A (Aug, 2025) Sep 20th, 2025
|
GSTR-1 (Aug 2025) Sep 11th, 2025
| GSTR-1 (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 13th, 2025
| GSTR-6 (Aug, 2025) Sep 13th, 2025
| GSTR-7 (Aug, 2025) Sep 10th, 2025
|
IFF (Optional) (Aug,2025) Sep 13th, 2025
| CMP-08 (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 18th, 2025
| GSTR-8 (Aug, 2025) Sep 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.