In this News Letter 1st Edition of July 2025, you’ll find:
1. Ratio of Latest Judgements
2. GST News & Update
3. GST Compliances Due Dates
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
KEI Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 6919/2025 (Delhi High Court)
In this case, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition on the issue that whether any payment of IGST was required in respect of those expenses which were incurred by the Petitioner pertaining to the transaction wherein Head Office has not issued a Tax Invoice to the Branch Office in respect of services being rendered by Head Office to the said Branch Office.
The Hon’ble High Court after taking into consideration the impugned order have observed that there were no cross-charges of expenses with the other entities. Moreover, the second proviso to Rule 28 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has been applied without giving benefit of the Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST.
Consequently, it was held that the Adjudicating Authority shall afford a hearing once again to the Petitioner and pass a fresh order in the light of the Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST dated 17th July, 2023.
Enling and Co. v. Union of India and 3 Ors., WP(C)/1699/2025 (Gauhati High Court)
The GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled as the Petitioner had not furnished the returns continuously for 6 months. The Petitioner contended that the Returns were not submitted as the situation was beyond the control of Petitioner.
It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that the Proper Officer has made mention of a Reply dated 14.02.2023 submitted from the petitioner’s end in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 14.01.2023. The Proper Officer has gone on to observe that he examined the Reply received from the petitioner and considered the submissions made by the petitioner at the time of personal hearing. On the other hand, the petitioner had asserted that there was no Reply submitted from her end and the petitioner did not attend any personal hearing before the Proper Officer. As there was no pleading to that effect in the writ petition, the petitioner submitted an additional affidavit asserting such facts.
Consequently, the Hon’ble High Court set aside and quashed the registration cancellation order dated March 18, 2023. The matter was reverted to the Show Cause Notice stage. The petitioner was granted one month to either submit a Reply to the Show Cause Notice or furnish all pending returns and pay any outstanding dues, interest, and late fees.
TATA Steel Ltd v. State of Jharkhand and ors., W.P. (T) No. 2900 of 2024 (Jharkhand High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its refund application for Rs. 1,23,22,617 under the CGST Act, 2017 for FY 2021-2022. The refund was sought for accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess due to tax-free exports under a Letter of Undertaking. The refund was rejected on May 15, 2023 and the appeal was also dismissed on October 25, 2023 citing non-submission of documents.
The court found the rejection based on five grounds—non-furnishing of payment receipt within 180 days, proof of export within 90 days, non-prosecution declaration, undertaking under Section 11(2) of the Cess Act and a statement per Para 43 (C) of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019—legally unsustainable. The court noted that proof of payment is not required for goods exports as per Rule 89(2) of CGST Rules and the Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST. The reconciliation statement confirmed exports within 90 days and CIRCULAR NO. 197/09/2023 dated 17.07.2023 allow refunds even if exports exceed the prescribed time. The non-prosecution declaration and Section 11(2) undertaking were deemed unnecessary since the required CA certificate was already submitted.
On basis of the above, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the refund rejection and appellate orders, directing the respondents to refund Rs. 1,23,22,617 with interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act within 12 weeks.
Alstom Transport India v Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), WRIT PETITION NO: 21164 OF 2021 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Petitioner, initially registered for the supply of goods under the CGST Act, 2017, later sought to amend its registration to include services also, the amendment was allowed effective September 19, 2020. The Petitioner filed two refund claims for unutilized input tax credit arising from IGST paid on export of services: Rs. 27,04,19,239 for June 2019 to February 2020 and Rs. 12,82,63,580 for March 2020 to June 2020. Both refund applications were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and subsequently dismissed on appeal by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals). The rejection was based on the grounds that the Petitioner was registered till September 19, 2020 only for the supply of goods and therefore, could not claim a refund for the supply of services.
The Petitioner challenged these rejections before Hon’ble High Court, arguing that there is only one comprehensive registration under the CGST and IGST Acts and no separate registration is required for goods and services. The Court, in its common order dated April 21, 2025 agreed with the Petitioner stating that the non-mention of service categories in the application form does not preclude the grant of a refund for zero-rated services.
The Hon’ble High Court held that a registered person is entitled to claim a refund in relation to zero-rated supplies once they are registered since the registration certificate is not containing specific service details, this fact does not bar such refund claims. Consequently, the Court allowed both writ petitions, setting aside the rejection orders and directing the respondents to refund the input tax credit claimed by the Petitioner, subject to verification of the claim and quantum.
Ankit Bansal v Union of India, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application Bail Application No. 4836/2025, (Rajasthan High Court)
In present facts of the case, the bail application was filed by Ankit Bansal (accused-petitioner) under Section 483 of BNSS. The FIR was registered at the DGGI, JZU, Jaipur office, for offenses punishable under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(j) and (l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The DGGI initiated an investigation into a firm suspected of engaging in falsely showing exempted supply in GST returns. Bank account analysis revealed transactions with various firms, primarily dealing in scrap trade, many of which were later identified as fake or non-existent by the GST department. These 19 accounts showed huge transactions of around Rs. 1800 crores in 1-2 years, with suspicious cash transactions of approximately Rs. 800 crores.
On May 31, 2024, DGGI seized Rs. 2,41,86,000 in unaccounted cash. Statements from multiple individuals indicated that the accused-petitioner, along with another person, was the “kingpin” of a scheme to create fake firms and pass on fraudulent Input Tax Credit. The investigation revealed that the accused-petitioner were involved in creating at least 353 fake/non-existent firms, issuing fake invoices without actual supply of goods/services, and passing on hundreds of crores in fake ITC. The DGGI alleged GST evasion amounting to approximately Rs. 704 crores by the accused-petitioner.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the maximum punishment under Section 132 of the CGST Act is five years, and the offenses are triable by a Magistrate. Since the charge-sheet was filed on July 31, 2024, indicating complete investigation, custodial interrogation is not required. The counsel also highlighted that co-accused was granted bail and the petitioner’s case is similar. It was further submitted that no show cause notice was issued before arrest and Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was not complied with. The petitioner asserted that he is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents and the case relies on documentary evidence already with the investigating agency.
The DGGI counsel opposed the bail application, asserting that the arrest was lawful and in accordance with the Act of 2017. They argued that the economic offense involving Rs. 704 crores is grave and part of a larger conspiracy to defraud the Government. The DGGI stated that Section 132(5) of the CGST Act makes offenses exceeding Rs. 5 crores cognizable and non-bailable requiring higher scrutiny for bail. They also contended that the petitioner provided misleading information in his bail application by falsely stating he had no other offenses.
On basis of the above, the Hon’ble High Court have dismissed the Bail Application.
GS Industries v Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P.(C) 7485/2024 & CMAPPL 31186/2024 (Delhi High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner challenged an order dated February 12, 2024 which rejected part of their interest claim on a refund. GS Industries had filed two refund applications in July 2019. A deficiency memo was issued in November 2019, to which the Petitioner replied in January 2020. Despite acknowledgements in February 2020 the refund was not granted with interest within 60 days as per Section 54(7) of the CGST Act.
After a writ petition, the refund applications were rejected on December 14, 2020. On appeal, the refund was allowed on January 3, 2022, but without interest. A second writ petition led to an order on March 28, 2023 directing the processing of the refund including interest. The refund was sanctioned on June 9, 2023 but only with Rs. 45,669/- as interest, calculated for 74 days from March 28, 2023 to June 9, 2023 at 6%.
The Hon’ble High Court cited Sections 54 and 56 of the CGST Act regarding interest on delayed refunds, noting different interest rates: up to 6% for general delays and up to 9% when a refund claim is upheld by an appellate authority or court and still not processed within 60 days of a subsequent application.
The Hon’ble High Court ruled that the Petitioner is entitled to interest for the delay, with a deduction for the 74 days taken by the Petitioner to respond to the deficiency memo. Interest will be paid at 6% from September 7.9.2019 to 4.4.2022 (excluding the 74 days from November 29, 2019 to February 11, 2020) and at 9% per annum from April 5, 2022 to June 9, 2023. Any interest already paid will be deducted.
SA INDUSTRIES v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, (2025) 32 Centax 126 (Kar.) (Karnataka High Court)
It was contended by the Petitioner that the order blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger was not justified due to lack of pre-decisional hearing, independent reasons and reliance on “borrowed satisfaction”. The petitioner argued that their ECL was blocked without a prior hearing or cogent reasons based solely on enforcement authority reports.
The Hon’ble High Court relied upon the precedent set in K-9 Enterprises v. State of Karnataka, which established that a pre-decisional hearing is required before blocking an ECL. It also emphasized that “reasons to believe” for invoking Rule 86A of the CGST Rules must stem from independent inquiry not borrowed satisfaction. The court found that the blocking order was passed mechanically, based on a text message and without proper application of mind or verification of the transaction’s genuineness. Consequently, the High Court quashed the blocking order and directed the unblocking of the petitioner’s ECL, while reserving liberty for the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law after providing due process. The ruling reiterated that such drastic measures as blocking ECLs must be exercised with utmost circumspection and objective determination.
GSTAT NEWS & UPDATES
- On July 1, 2025, the Cabinet approved three Technical Members for GSTAT State Benches in Uttar Pradesh:
- Shri Vivek Kumar (Retd. Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow)
- Shri Ananjai Kumar Rai (Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal, Varanasi)
- Shri Arvind Kumar (Retd. Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya)
As per Office Order No. 114/2025 dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Order of Hon’ble President, GSTAT the dress code has been prescribed, the Hon’ble President and Judicial Members are required to wear attire prescribed for Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or High Courts, but without the gown. This ensures judicial uniformity while also introducing a slight relaxation in formality. For Technical Members, a distinct and detailed dress code has been laid down. Male Technical Members must wear either white, striped or black trousers, paired with a black coat over a white shirt, along with a black necktie or a buttoned-up black coat. Female Technical Members are prescribed to wear a black overcoat over a saree that is either black, white or lightly printed. Furthermore, any Technical Member wearing a turban must ensure that it is either white or light in colour
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN JULY 2025 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Jun, 2025) Jul 20th, 2025
| GSTR-3B (Apr-Jun, 2025) Jul 22nd, 24th, 2025
| GSTR-5 (Jun, 2025) Jul 13th, 2025
| GSTR-5A (Jun, 2025) Jul 20th, 2025
|
GSTR-1 (Jun, 2025) Jul 11th, 2025
| GSTR-1 (Apr-Jun, 2025) Jul 13th, 2025
| GSTR-6 (Jun, 2025) Jul 13th, 2025
| GSTR-7 (Jun, 2025) Jul 10th, 2025
|
IFF (Optional) (Jun,2025) NA
| CMP-08 (Apr-Jun, 2025) Jul 18th, 2025
| GSTR-8 (Jun, 2025) Jul 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.