In this News Letter 1st Edition of November 2025, you’ll find:
1.RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
2.DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN DECEMBER 2025
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
KEMEXEL ECOMMERCE (P.) LTD. V. SALES TAX OFFICER, AVATO, W.P. (C) NO. 16555 OF 2025, (Delhi High Court)
In present facts of the case, the petitioner, was issued a scrutiny notice under Section 61 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year 2019-2020. The discrepancies identified were related to mismatches in Input Tax Credit (ITC) data (GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B). The petitioner provided a detailed explanation with supporting documents, including invoices and bank statements, which the proper officer accepted, formally closing the scrutiny via a Form ASMT-12 order. Subsequently, a new show-cause notice and a demand order for ₹53,46,391 were issued under Section 73 for the exact same issues and period. The petitioner challenged this new demand in the High Court.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, by providing reason that once the explanation provided by an assessee during a Section 61 scrutiny is accepted by the proper officer and a closure order in Form ASMT-12 is issued, that marks the end of the matter for those specific discrepancies. Section 61 doesn’t permit the tax authorities to reopen the same issues for the same tax period, especially when the assessee’s explanation was previously found acceptable. Further the proceedings under Section 73 cannot be used to revisit issues already settled through the Section 61 process, as Section 73 does not have an overriding clause that nullifies a completed Section 61 scrutiny. Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court observed that initiating a fresh, identical demand constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power and a violation of legal procedure, as it essentially means re-adjudicating an already resolved matter. Thus, the Hon’ble Court held that the fresh show-cause notice and the subsequent demand order issued under Section 73 were quashed and set aside. The court emphasized that the department was not permitted to initiate further proceedings on identical grounds unless the original explanation was rejected or corrective action was not taken at that time.
RABIRUN VINIMAY PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS., WPA 27722 of 2024 (Calcutta High Court)
The petitioner in this case have challenged a tax demand order of Rs. 4,28,33,922/- (plus interest and penalty) for the period April 2019 to March 2020 (F.Y. 2019-20), passed by the CGST and Central Excise Joint Commissioner under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The core of the petitioner’s argument rests on the “clean slate” principle following its sale as a going concern in the liquidation process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioner further contends there is “little difference” between the two proceedings (F.Y. 2017-18 and F.Y. 2019-20) because both financial years fall prior to the sale as a going concern. The same reasoning for dropping the earlier proceeding should therefore apply to the current one.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court disposed the writ by quashing GST demand issued under Section 73 for periods prior to the sale of the corporate debtor, holding that such demands are invalid once the company is sold as a going concern through liquidation under the IBC. Relying on its earlier ruling in the Judgment of Kashvi Power Steel, the Hon’ble Court reiterated that a purchaser of a corporate debtor as a going concern cannot be burdened with any pre-existing tax or statutory dues. The Court emphasized that the primary objective of the IBC is corporate revival, and imposing past liabilities on the successful buyer would defeat this objective. Since the disputed GST demand related to FY 2017-18 to 2019-20 periods preceding the going-concern sale. The Hon’ble High Court held that such dues stand extinguished once the sale is completed on a “clean slate” basis. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that, following completion of CIRP or a going-concern sale in liquidation, all historic dues are frozen and creditors can recover only through the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC.
ABOUND IT SERIVICES V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14354 of 2025, (Gujarat High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner’s registration has been cancelled under section 29(2)(c) of the Gujarat GST Act, 2017, for non-filing of the returns from March 2024 onwards. The Petitioner approached the High Court contending that the tax dues for the relevant period had been fully computed & discharged through the deposits in the Electronic Cash Ledger. The Petitioner produced an affidavit showing the payment of Rs. 46,93,112 including the tax due of Rs. 39,72,494; an interest of Rs.5,26,632 & a late fees of Rs. 1,35,020 u/s 49 of the Gujarat GST Act & Rule 87 of the GST Rules. The Respondent’s pleader confirmed on the instructions from the State Tax Office, that the said payment had been made & recorded in the GSTN Portal. The pleader further submitted that upon filing of the pending returns, the authorities would verify the correctness of the tax liability & act accordingly in accordance with law.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court directed the respondent authorities to revoke the GST Registration Cancellation once the taxpayer has deposited the outstanding tax, interest & late fee and consequently revocation should follow upon verification.
SINGHAL IRON TRADERS V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, WRIT TAX NO. 1357 OF 2022 (Allahabad High Court)
The Applicant’s firm in this case is in the business of trading and supply of iron scrap, it purchased goods in August 2018 from a registered supplier M/s Arvind Metal Suppliers, Nunhai, Agra against two valid tax invoices and related e-way bills. The payment was made to the supplier via banking channels. The supplier had duly submitted GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the said period along with payment of the due tax. Thereafter, based on the fact that the GST registration of the supplier was cancelled dated 31.01.2019 on the basis of the fact that the supplier does not exist, the department commenced proceedings u/s 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. An SCN was issued asking for the ITC reversal and levying of a penalty. The applicant submitted a detailed response with all supporting documents such as tax invoices, e-way bills, proof of payment, and duly filed returns; however, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the response and confirmed reversal of GST ITC alleging that purchases were from a non-existent supplier.
The Hon’ble Court herein observed that it was undisputed that the supplier in the related tax period was registered. The cancellation of the registration cannot invalidate genuine transactions accomplished when the supplier was duly registered. Also, the applicant secures valid tax invoices, e-way bills, and banking channel payments fulfilling the needs of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act. The filing of GSTR-1 and GSTR-2B of the supplier established that the tax had been filed with the government, as GSTR-3B could not be submitted without the actual tax payment.
Thereafter the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the department relied on the data that the supplier was non-existent, with no verification of whether the supplier was in operation during the transaction. No permission without factual verification was held for such borrowed satisfaction. The Department did not allege any fraud, misrepresentation or connivance on the applicant’s end. Therefore, the presumption of
bona fide conduct is not contested. As the basic norms for ITC eligibility were met and no willful suppression or fraud was discovered, initiation of proceedings under section 74 (fraud-based demand) was wholly unwarranted. The writ petition was allowed by the Allahabad High Court, setting aside the orders passed u/s 74 and holding that the refusal of ITC to the applicant was not sustainable in law.
MATHUR POLYMERS V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 50279/2025, (Supreme Court of India)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner Challenged a GST Assessment Order for a tax demand of over ₹81.5 lakh, arguing that the proceedings were invalid due to the violation of natural justice as the Petitioner claimed to have not received notices for personal hearing. Further the Petitioner contended that there was an consolidation of different financial years as a single consolidated SCN was illegally issued as well as single Order for multiple financial years was illegally passed which is contrary to Section 74 of the GST Act.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the language of the legislation does not prohibit consolidated SCN as, this is especially necessary in cases involving complex fraudulent schemes that span multiple years, such as those involving fake firms or non-existent suppliers. Further, the court found that notices were properly sent to the petitioner’s registered email address on the CGST portal and the petitioner had concealed the fact that it had received them. Thus, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and imposed a costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the Petitioner, holding that notices sent to the registered email address were valid and that consolidated Show Cause Notices and orders for multiple years are permissible, particularly in cases of alleged fraudulent claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The Petitioner appealed against the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court but the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court thereby affirming that electronic communication to an authorized representative is acceptable.
DEVENDER SINGH V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST COMMISSIONERATE, W.P.(C) 16820/2025 & CMAPPL. 69120/2025 (Delhi High Court)
In present facts of the case, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated August 17, 2023 was issued by the CGST department. The department’s investigation uncovered a complex network of 41 exporting firms and 116 fake entities allegedly created and operated by Petitioner and his son. These firms were used for “circular trading” that is issuing invoices without any actual supply of goods or services in order to fraudulently claim crores of rupees in Input Tax Credit (ITC). An initial Order-in-Original dated January 31, 2025, was set aside by the High Court in a previous writ petition (W.P.(C) 1958/2025) because the petitioner was not granted a hearing. After a fresh hearing, the Additional Commissioner passed a new order on July 28, 2025, which was challenged in the present case.
Petitioner’s Counsel contended that the Petitioner herein is a non-taxable person and u/s 122(1) of the CGST Act, Penalties can be only imposed on a taxable person, whereas the petitioner was merely a director or partner and not the registered entity, he could not be penalized. Furthermore, petitioner’s request to cross-examine other co-noticees and individuals whose statements were used against him was unfairly rejected & the SCN was invalid as the officer who issued it was not a designated “proper officer” for imposing penalties under Section 122 at that time, based on a subsequent circular. Respondent’s Counsel on the other hand contended that the petitioner had not requested cross-examination during the first round
of litigation. She contended that the previous court order only mandated a hearing and the petitioner could not now raise fresh grounds to challenge the SCN itself.
The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition rejecting the petitioner’s interpretation observed that “In the case of fake, non-existent and fraudulent firms, who do not have any real persons as partners or proprietors or even any incorporation, the ‘taxable person’ would be the person who has got such firms created and used the same for availment of ITC. If the submissions of the ld. Counsel is accepted, then in the case of fake firms or non-existent firms, there would be no liability cast upon anybody despite fraudulently cheating the Exchequer of crores of rupees”. The Court concluded that the petitioner, alleged to be the mastermind of the entire “maze of transactions,” could not escape liability on this technical ground. The Court further stated that the right to cross-examination is not an unfettered one in quasi-judicial proceedings, especially when there is substantial documentary evidence. Citing its own precedent in Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner, the Court noted that parties cannot convert SCN proceedings into “mini-trials.” The Court highlighted that the adjudicating authority had provided detailed reasons for rejecting the request, finding it unnecessary given the corroborative evidence.
The Hon’ble Court emphasized that it would not ordinarily exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in complex cases of fraudulent ITC availment. The Court cited several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. Commercial Steel Limited to underscore that such matters require deep factual analysis best suited for the statutory appellate mechanism
VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL INDIA (P.) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA, W.P. (C) NOS. 1064 & 13605 OF 2025, (Delhi High Court)
In present facts of the case, the assessee was granted three days to respond to the pre-show cause notice, the department issued the final SCN before the reply period expired, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee filed its final reply on 11-10-2024, and therefore the department was required to conclude the audit within three months from that date, as mandated by the statutory timeline. The audit report was dated 11-02-2025 and communicated on 13-02-2025 which exceeded the permissible audit period.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the audit was time-barred. Due to the limitation breach and premature issuance of the SCN, the Court set aside the SCN and directed that proceedings be relegated to the pre-show-cause-notice stage for proper compliance with law. The Hon’ble Court reiterated that, under the GST law, a registered person must receive at least 15 days’ notice before commencement of an audit, forming part of the statutory scheme to ensure fairness.
KALYR RETAIL (P.) LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, DELHI, W.P.(C) NOS. 15918 AND 16530 OF 2025, (Delhi High Court)
In present facts of the case, the petitioner had taken over an earlier proprietorship and obtained a fresh GST registration, but the earlier registration remained active. Show cause notices (SCNs) for specific past periods were issued to the erstwhile concern. Since the petitioner did not monitor the old GST portal, the SCNs and subsequent orders escaped notice of the petitioner, resulting in ex-parte orders being passed without submission of replies. The Hon’ble High Court held that absence of a reply and lack of an effective opportunity of hearing constituted a breach of natural justice, particularly as the orders were passed without any personal hearing. The impugned orders were quashed and the matter remanded, with liberty to the petitioner to file replies within the prescribed time and to avail a personal hearing before fresh orders are passed.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.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN DECEMBER 2025 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Oct, 2025) Nov 20th, 2025
| GSTR-3B (Oct-Dec, 2025) Jan 22nd, 24th, 2026 | GSTR-5 (Oct, 2025) Nov 13th, 2025
| GSTR-5A (Oct, 2025) Nov 20th, 2025
|
GSTR-1 (Oct, 2025) Nov 11th, 2025
| GSTR-1(Oct-Dec, 2025) Jan 13th, 2026 | GSTR-6 (Oct, 2025) Nov 13th, 2025
| GSTR-7 (Oct, 2025) Nov 10th, 2025
|
IFF (Optional) (Oct,2025) Nov 13th, 2025
| CMP-08 (Oct-Dec, 2025) Jan 18th, 2026
| GSTR-8 (Oct, 2025) Nov 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.