RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
CGST. Vs. Yogesh Gupta (CIS No. REMP/1 32/2025) (District & Session Court, Gurugram)
The Gurugram Court has held that the arrest of an accused by a GST officer as illegal due to improper communication of the Grounds for Arrest. The prosecution failed to adhere to the legal requirements under Section 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 35 of the BNSS Act, 2023 as the sentence for the offence is not more than 7 years thereby making the arrest illegal. The court held that the arrest of the accused is illegal and ruled for the immediate release of the accused from custody.
Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited and Anr. Vs The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Shibpur Charge WBGST and Ors. (MAT/2100/2024) (Calcutta High Court)
The appellants are accused of claiming ITC on supplies from suppliers whose registrations were later cancelled retrospectively. Appellants provided supporting documents, including invoices and payment details, however the adjudicating authority reiterated the allegations. The Hon’ble High Court directed re-adjudication of the matter as the court identified two key issues for further consideration: the effect of the retrospective cancellation of registration and proof of goods movement. The appellants were granted the opportunity to submit a fresh response, and the department was instructed to reassess the case accordingly. The Hon’ble High Court ruled that the Revenue must reconsider the matter after the appellants submit an additional reply with all the requisite documents to the show cause notice.
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited -Vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P.A 28840 of 2024) (Calcutta High Court)
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court ruled that the Appellate Authority under the GST Act can condone delays beyond the statutory period, as per Section 107(4). The court criticized the authority for dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and delay condonation request without considering the petitioner’s lack of knowledge about the impugned order, rendering the decision perverse. The petitioner, had a mismatch in its GST returns, leading to a demand notice for Rs. 9.6 lakh. The impugned Notice was uploaded on the GST portal, bypassing regular communication channels, causing the petitioner to be unaware of the proceedings. An ex-parte order was passed by the department and due to non-awareness of the impugned order the petitioner’s appeal was delayed by 246 days. The Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal solely on the ground of delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under the GST Act.
Mishal J. Shah HUF (Keeyan Enterprises) Versus State of Maharashtra & Others (Writ Petition (L) No.38480 Of 2024) (Bombay High Court)
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court accepted the apology from two GST officers who had arrested a businessman for tax evasion before recording the statement of the accused. The case involved allegations that the accused had fraudulently availed and used input tax credit on the invoices issued by cancelled GSTIN suppliers, with no actual supply/ receipt of goods or services. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court noted that
proper procedure for arrest was not followed by the GST officers and the actions interfered with justice. The court emphasized that arrests in future must be strictly made in adherence to the law.
Pinnacle Vehicles and Services Private Limited Versus Joint Commissioner, (Intelligence & Enforcement) (W.P(C). NO.25724 OF 2024) (Kerala High Court)
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of State GST officers, arguing that they could not act for CGST without a notification specifying conditions. The Kerala High Court upheld the cross-empowerment of State GST officers to act as proper officers under the CGST Act, as supported by Section 6(1). The court clarified that while current law does not impose conditions for such empowerment, these may be specified in the future through a government notification, based on GST Council recommendations.
The court referred to a prior ruling from the Madras High Court, which held that the absence of such a notification rendered the actions of State GST officers without jurisdiction. However, the Kerala High Court disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that, based on the current law, State GST officers are empowered to act as proper officers for CGST purposes unless the government imposes specific conditions through a notification.
The Kerala High Court upheld the statutory cross-empowerment of GST officers and stated that the proceedings initiated by State GST officers are valid unless any future notification imposes restrictions or conditions.
Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Company Ltd. Versus Asst. Commissioner of Central Tax and Others (Writ Petition No: 254/2024) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Hon’ble High Court ruled that Badam Flavoured Milk is subject to a 5% GST, classifying it under Tariff Heading 0402 for “milk containing added sugar or other sweetening matter.” The court emphasized that this specific entry prevails over the general category of “milk-based beverages” under Tariff Heading 2202, which attracts a 12% GST. The department had demand for the shortfall of tax and imposed a penalty under Sections 122(2)(b) and 74 of the GST Act on the petitioner. The petitioner argued that flavoured milk, consisting primarily of milk with added sugar and flavourings, should be classified under HSN 0402, not HSN 2202, and hence subject to the 5% GST rate. The Hon’ble High Court held that Badam Flavoured Milk is subject to a 5% GST and is classifiable under Tariff Heading 0402 for “milk containing added sugar or other sweetening matter” and the court set aside the demand of tax and penalty imposed on petitioner.
Dharmendra Agarwal Versus Union of India (WP(C)/6963/2024) (Gauhati High Court)
The Hon’ble High Court granted bail to the accused involved in alleged GST evasion through claiming of bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC), the Hon’ble High Court held that Commissioner had failed to determine the GST liability of the accused, which resulted in the absence of ‘reasons to believe’ necessary for arrest under Section 69 of the GST Act. The Hon’ble High Court bench noted that while Section 69 of GST Act confers power to arrest, this power must be exercised based on a belief formed by the Commissioner that the person has committed an offence under Section 132, which includes GST evasion.
The court observed that while the Commissioner had authorized the arrest based on the materials presented, there was no evidence that the liability for the alleged GST evasion had been formally determined. The absence of such determination meant that the Commissioner’s belief lacked the necessary foundation under the law to justify the arrest. As a result, the court granted interim bail to the accused, subject to the conditions of furnishing a personal bond and bail bond of Rs. 1 Lakh each, with two local sureties of the same amount.
Mandatory mentioning of HSN codes in GSTR-1 & GSTR 1A
After successful implementation of Phase-I & Phase-II now Phase-III regarding Table 12 of GSTR-1 & 1A is being implemented, from return period February 2025. In this phase manual entry of HSN has been replaced by choosing correct HSN from given Drop down. Also, Table-12 has been bifurcated into two tabs namely B2B and B2C, to report these supplies separately. Further, validation regarding values of the supplies and tax amounts involved in the same, have also been introduced for both the tabs of Table-12. However, in initial period these validations have been kept in warning mode only, which means failing the validation will not be a blocker for filling of GSTR-1& 1A.
Advisory For Waiver Scheme Under Section 128A
Both Forms GST SPL 01 and GST SPL 02 are available on the GST portal and the taxpayers are advised to file required applications under waiver scheme to claim the benefit for waiver of interest and penalty on demand of tax for F.Y. 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.
One of the eligibility conditions for filing application under waiver scheme is to withdraw the appeal if any filed against the demand order/notice/statement for which waiver application is to be submitted. For the withdrawal of Appeal (APL 01) filed before First Appellate Authority, the option is already available in the GST portal. However, for the old Appeal (APL 01) filed before 21.03.2023, the withdrawal option is not available in GST portal, the taxpayers are advised to manually submit their request for withdrawal of appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority will forward such requests to GSTN through State Nodal officer for withdrawal of such Appeal (i.e. filed before 21.03.2023 and not disposed of) from backend.
Notification No. 07/2025- Central Tax
The Central Government, exercising powers under Section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has made amendments to the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The key changes are as follows:
- The amendments will be known as the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2025 and will come into effect on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless stated otherwise.
- A new rule, 16A, is introduced, which allows the proper officer to grant a temporary identification number (TIN) to individuals who are not required to be registered under the Act but are obligated to make any payment under the Act. The TIN will be issued along with an order in Part B of FORM GST REG-12.
- Rule 19(1) is amended to include the phrase “or in the intimation furnished by the composition taxpayer in FORM GST CMP-02” after FORM GST REG-10. This means that composition taxpayers who submit an intimation in FORM GST CMP-02 will now be included within the scope of this provision.
- Rule 87(4) is amended to refer to Rule 16A. Specifically, after the words “common portal,” the phrase “as per rule 16A” will be added, indicating that the provisions for granting a temporary identification number will apply to certain processes involving the common portal.
Notification No. 08/2025- Central Tax
The Central Government, based on the Council’s recommendations and under Section 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has waived the excess late fees under Section 47 for the filing of FORM GSTR-9 for the financial years 2017-18 to 2022-23. This waiver applies to registered persons who were required to submit the reconciliation statement in FORM GSTR-9C but failed to do so with their annual return. These persons must now submit FORM GSTR-9C by March 31, 2025. However, no refund of late fees already paid for delayed submission of FORM GSTR-9C will be provided.
LEGAL MAXIMS
Palimony | Money which the court orders a man to pay regularly to a woman with whom he has been living and from whom he is separated. |
Per curiam | By a court. |
Per incuriam | Because of lack of care. |
Prima facie | On the face of it |
Quantum meruit | What one has earned. or the amount he deserves. |
Qui facit per alium, facit per se | He who acts through other acts himself |
Quid pro quo | Something for something |
It means he who receives advantage must also bear the burden. |
DUE DATES | |||||
LAST DATE TO ISSUE GST SHOW CAUSE NOTICE & ORDER FOR F.Y. 2017-18 TO F.Y. 2020-21 | |||||
TAX PERIOD (F.Y.) DUE DATE OR EXTENDED DATE OF ANNUAL RETURN | NON-FRAUD CAESE u/s 73 of CGST | FRAUD CASES u/s 74 of CGST | |||
NOTICE | ORDER | NOTICE | ORDER | ||
3 MONTHS BEFORE ORDER | WITHIN 3 YEARS OF DUE DATE OF ANNUAL RETURN | NOTICE 6 MONTHS BEFORE ORDER | WITHIN 5 YR OF DUE DATE OF ANNUAL RETURN | ||
2017-18 | 05-Feb-2020 | 30-Sep-2023 (Time barred) | 31-Dec-2023 (Time Barred) | 05-Aug-2024 (Time Barred) | 05-Feb-2025 (Approaching) |
2018-19 | 31-Dec-2020 | 31-Jan-2024 (Time Barred) | 30-Apr-2024 (Time Barred) | 30-June-2025 | 31-Dec-2025 |
2019 -20 | 31-Mar-2021 | 31-May- 2024 (Time Barred) | 31-Aug-2024 (Time Barred) | 30-Sep-2025 | 31-Mar-2026 |
2020-21 | 28-Feb-2022 | 30-Nov-2024 (Time Barred) | 28-Feb-2025 (Approaching) | 31-Aug-2026 | 28-Feb-2027 |
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.