In this News Letter 2nd Edition of July 2025, you’ll find:
1. Ratio of Latest Judgements
2.GST News & Update
3. GST Filing Procedure (Part 1)
4. GST Compliances Due Dates
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9764 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India)
In this case, the appellant, a registered dealer in Karnataka, consigned goods to Delhi. During transit, the goods were transhipped to another vehicle, leading to a discrepancy of 7 bags. The consignment was detained by GST authorities at Jhansi, and a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 was issued. The appellant filed a detailed reply denying the allegations but paid ₹7,20,440 (tax and penalty) under protest to secure release of goods. However, the authorities failed to pass a final order under Section 129(3). Therefore, the Appellant approached Hon’ble High Court for passing of detailed order, but the Writ was dismissed holding that proceedings were deemed concluded under Section 129(5) upon payment.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that issuance of a reasoned final order is mandatory even after payment of tax and penalty, particularly when objections were filed or payment was made under protest. The Court emphasized that a deemed conclusion under Section 129(5) does not override the statutory obligation under Section 129(3) to pass a reasoned order, which is critical for preserving the taxpayer’s right to appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It held that procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice were violated when no speaking order was passed.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the GST authority to pass a reasoned final order in Form GST MOV-09 and upload its summary in Form DRC-07 within one month. It is clarified that mere payment, especially under protest or business exigency, cannot be deemed voluntary, nor does it waive the assessee’s legal remedies. This judgment upholds taxpayers’ procedural rights and the constitutional mandate under Article 265 that no tax shall be collected without authority of law.
Our observations: This Judgment would set an important precedent that speaking and detailed Order must be passed under the law to safeguard the rights of the tax payers provided under Article 265.
Trendships Online Services Private Limited v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, WRIT TAX No. 501 of 2023 (Allahabad High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner, had claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for purchases made in 2018 from a supplier viz Shree Radhey International which was registered at the time of the transaction. The Petitioner company asserted that payments were made through banking channels and all statutory documentation, including Tax Invoices was in order. However, a show-cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Act was issued in 2021, alleging that the ITC was wrongly availed as the outward supplier did not remit the corresponding tax to the government. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, and therefore the present Writ Petition was filed.
The petitioner relied on various judgments asserting that once the transaction was bona fide and the payment made, the recipient should not suffer for the outward supplier’s default. However, the Hon’ble High Court held that under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, the entitlement to ITC is subject to actual payment of tax by the supplier to the government. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the genuineness of the transaction, including physical movement of goods and tax payment, lies squarely with the purchaser. In this case, apart from invoices and bank payments, the petitioner failed to submit evidence proving tax payment by the supplier or physical receipt of goods.
Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court held that mere production of invoices was insufficient. It was further held that the petitioner did not meet the statutory conditions necessary for availing ITC and upheld the tax, interest and penalty levied under Section 74. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Our observations: This Judgment could create ruckus among genuine inward suppliers as in most of the cases without taking action on the culprit outward supplier, the genuine tax payer (inward supplier) have to suffer which cannot be the spirit of law. At the same time the inward supplier need to prove the genuineness of the transaction by substantiating all the necessary evidences including actual moment and receipt of goods as well as payment of amount of GST to the outward supplier.
Transtech Solution v. State Tax Authorities, W.P.(C) No.13821 of 2025 (Orissa High Court)
The Petitioner was engaged in works contract, challenged the unilateral action of the GST authorities in blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth ₹1,88,120 under Rule 86A of the CGST/OGST Rules, 2017. The credit was blocked citing that the petitioner transacted with two allegedly non-existent suppliers — M/s Metro International and M/s Cerebral Trade Exim. The petitioner contended that both suppliers had duly filed their GST Returns and paid taxes for FY 2024–25. Supporting documents, including GSTR-1, GSTR-3B filings, and tax liability discharge statements, were produced to assert the legitimacy of the transactions and suppliers’ existence.
The Hon’ble High Court analyzed submissions form both parties. While the Department relied on a confidential report alleging non-existent suppliers and cancellation of registrations, the petitioner submitted portal downloads showing statutory compliance by the said suppliers. The Court noted that the reply filed by the petitioner on 03.05.2025 remained unconsidered, and a formal SCN under Section 73 had since been issued. The Bench held that whether ITC was correctly availed based on actual movement of goods and receipt thereof could not be decided without a detailed factual inquiry by the adjudicating authority.
The Hon’ble High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction at this stage by stating that ITC is a statutory concession subject to strict compliance and factual disputes especially regarding supplier genuineness and movement of goods must be resolved by departmental authorities. Consequently, the Court directed the proper officer to consider the petitioner’s reply within four weeks and granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue alternate remedies. The writ petition was thus disposed of without commenting on merits.
Our observations: The unilaterally blocking of ITC should not be made a practice by the Department as it hampers working capital of the Assessee and thus business is hampered. The Hon’ble Orissa High Court have not been able to appreciate the facts as substantiated by the filing of the returns by the alleged non-existent outward supplier on the Common Portal of the GST department, then how can such registered dealer could be non-existent in the eyes of law. Moreover, the basis of the confidential report must be examined before providing credence to such report of the Department against the registered dealer and alleging it as not existent.
Smt R Ashaarajaa v The Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate General of GST Intelligence, W.P.Nos.29716 of 2024 (Madras High Court)
In present matter there were a bunch of Writ Petitions challenging the issuance of “bunched” show cause notices (SCNs) by the GST authorities for multiple financial years under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners contended that such practice was contrary to the statutory mandate, violative of the principles of natural justice and prejudicial to the right of the petitioner to defend themselves effectively. It was argued that each financial year was to be treated as a distinct assessment period, with individual limitation periods and tax liabilities and thus SCNs must be issued separately for each year. They also cited practical hardships arising from such bunching, such as inability to avail amnesty schemes for specific years or seek compounding of offences for individual years.
The respondents argued that there was no express prohibition in the GST Act against issuing consolidated SCNs covering multiple years. Referring to phrases like “any period” and “tax periods” in the Act, they contended that the law permitted issuing notices for blocks of years. They further argued that since monthly returns were also clubbed for annual assessments, the same logic should apply to financial years.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the GST Act mandates issuance of SCNs based on “tax periods” which as defined in Section 2(106), refers to periods for which returns are to be filed monthly or annually. Since the limitation period is defined for each financial year separately (3 years under Section 73 and 5 years under Section 74), each year must be treated as a distinct unit. Consequently, bunching of SCNs for multiple financial years is not permissible. The Court relied on precedent, including the judgment of Titan Company Ltd vs. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise reported in (2024) 15 Centax 118 (Mad.) and concluded that the issuance of a single SCN for multiple financial years was contrary to law. Accordingly, the impugned notices were quashed.
Our observations: The said Judgment have once again affirmed that issuing a single & consolidated SCN for multiple Financial Years are non est in law.
Atul Limited vs. Union of India, R/Special Civil Application No. 20038 of 2022 (Gujarat High Court)
In present matter, the Petitioner Company was engaged in manufacturing and exporting chemical products and have challenged the rejection of its refund claim under the GST Compensation Cess framework. The petitioner used coal to generate electricity for manufacturing export goods and paid compensation cess on coal purchases. Since the final goods were exported (zero-rated supply) without any compensation cess liability, the petitioner filed a refund claim of ₹3.39 crore for the unutilized input tax credit (ITC) on cess. The refund was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld in appeal, citing Circular Nos. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 and 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 which restricted cess refund where goods are exported with payment of IGST.
The Gujarat High Court, relying on its earlier decision in Patson Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, held that the rejection of refund was based on a misinterpretation of the circulars. The Court noted that although the petitioner paid IGST on export, no compensation cess was levied on the exported goods. Therefore, the proviso to Section 11(2) of the Compensation Cess Act, which limits cess credit utilization only for paying cess on outward supplies, was not applicable. The Court clarified that since cess was paid on inputs (coal) used for manufacturing zero-rated export goods, refund of such unutilized ITC is permissible under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, Section 16(3) of the IGST Act and Section 11(2) of the Cess Act.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to process and sanction the petitioner’s refund claim for the cess amount. The writ petitions were allowed, setting aside both the Impugned Orders.
Our Observations: The Hon’ble High Court have allowed Refund of Compensation Cess to Exporter and have substantiated that substantial benefit could not be denied due to misinterpretation of GST Circulars
GST NEWS
GST Portal is now enabled to file Appeal against Waiver Order (SPL 07)
Taxpayers who have filed Waiver Applications in Forms SPL 01/SPL 02 are receiving orders from the Jurisdictional Authorities. The GST Portal has now been enabled to allow taxpayers to file Appeal Applications (APL 01) against SPL 07 (Rejection) Order. Also, if any taxpayer does not want to file Appeal against “Waiver Application Rejection Order” but want to restore the Appeal Application (filed against original demand order) which was withdrawn for filing Waiver Application can do so by filing Undertaking. The option for filing of Undertaking is available under “Orders” section in “Waiver Application” case folder.
Advisory on Reporting Values in Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B
Starting from the July 2025 tax period, the auto-populated values in Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B for inter-state supplies made to unregistered persons, composition taxpayers and UIN holders will be non-editable and taxpayers will need to file GSTR-3B with the auto-populated values generated by the system only. If incorrect values are auto-populated in Table 3.2 after July 2025, taxpayers need to correct the values by making amendments through Form GSTR-1A or through Form GSTR-1/IFF filed for subsequent tax periods.
Regarding GSTR-3A Notices issued for non-filing of form GSTR-4 to cancelled Composition
As per the provisions of Section 39(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, read with Rule 68 of the CGST Rules, 2017, notices in Form GSTR-3A are required to be issued in cases of non-filing of Form GSTR-4. However, it has come to notice that due to a system-related glitch such notices have been inadvertently issued in certain cases where they were not applicable — including instances involving taxpayers whose registrations had been cancelled prior to the Financial Year 2024–25.
The issue is currently under active examination, and the technical team is implementing appropriate corrective measures to ensure that such instances do not recur. In the meantime, taxpayers who have either duly filed the relevant return or whose registrations were
cancelled prior to the Financial Year 2024–25 are advised to ignore these notices, as no further action is required on their part in such cases.
For any other issues or concerns, taxpayers are advised to raise a grievance through the Self-Service Portal available on the GST Portal along with all relevant details to facilitate prompt and effective resolution.
GSTAT – FILING PROCEDURE (PART 1)
S. NO. | Particulars | Simplified Description | Relevant Section/Rule |
1. | Translation | Non-English docs must have English translations. | Rule 23 |
2. | Defective Forms | Registrar can allow correction within 30 days; if not corrected, appeal may be rejected. | Rule 24 |
3. | Verification | All appeals must be signed by appellant and verified by authorized representative | Rule 28 |
4. | Interlocutory Applications | For stay, condonation, rectification etc., to be filed in GSTAT FORM-01. | Rule 29 |
5. | Reply by Respondent | To be filed within 1 month from receipt of appeal. | Rule 36 |
6. | Rejoinder Filing | May be filed within 1 month or as allowed by the Bench. | Rule 37 |
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN AUGUST 2025 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Jul, 2025) Aug 20th, 2025
| GSTR-3B (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 22nd, 24th, 2025
| GSTR-5 (Jul, 2025) Aug 13th, 2025
| GSTR-5A (Jul, 2025) Aug 20th, 2025
|
GSTR-1 (Jul, 2025) Aug 11th, 2025
| GSTR-1 (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 13th, 2025
| GSTR-6 (Jul, 2025) Aug 13th, 2025
| GSTR-7 (Jul, 2025) Aug 10th, 2025
|
IFF (Optional) (Jul,2025) Aug 13th, 2025
| CMP-08 (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 18th, 2025
| GSTR-8 (Jul, 2025) Aug 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.