In this News Letter 2nd Edition of June 2025, you’ll find:
1. Ratio of Latest Judgements
2.Latest Circulars Issued By CBIC
3. GST News & Update
4. GST Compliances Due Dates
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
Assam Auto Spares v. State of Assam (2025) 31 Centax 102 (Gauhati High Court)
In the Writ Petition, it was contended by the revenue that the assessee had not replied to a show cause notice as mentioned in the Impugned Order, whereas in the affidavit it was contended by the petitioner that the reply was filed. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court adhering to the principles of natural justice remanded the matter and have directed for fresh adjudication on basis of the reply to the show cause notice already filed.
Hitech CNC Engineering v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) 31 Centax 103 (Madras High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court have condoned the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal as the impugned order was passed ex-parte and whereas the Petitioner have contended that they were unaware of the Order passed. On this ground alone the delay was condoned as the petitioner have right to fair and personal hearing.
Kapil Kumar Khattar v. Union Territory of J&K and Ladakh
(2025) 31 Centax 350 (Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner sought review of the earlier judgment dated 3rd November, 2023, whereby the writ petition challenging the demand for recovery of differential GST on works contract services was dismissed. The principal ground urged was that the allotment of Work Contract by the J&K Govt and its execution occurred after the date of reduction of GST from 18% to 12% and that Condition No.49 of the tender which provided for adjustment of tax variations based on the rate of tax applicable as on the last date for submission of bids for tender.
The assessee-contractor had submitted his bid when the applicable GST rate was 18%. Subsequently, the GST Council in its meeting dt 05/08/2017 recommended a reduction of the GST rate on Works Contracts from 18% to 12% for which Press Notes were widely circulated but the reduction in rate was implemented on 21-09-2017 through Notification No. 23/2017-Central Tax (Rate). As contended by the Assessee-Contractors the bids were required inclusive of GST Rate and thus submitted considering 12% tax rate. Tenders were finalized after 21/09/2017 and works were also executed thereafter. However 4 years later, on 16-06-2021 a letter was issued to the Contractors by the Government of J&K requiring deposit of the differential amount of tax reduced from 18% to12%. The assessee contended that the Work Order had been issued after 21-09-2017 i.e. after the rate reduction under.
Notification No. 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 21-09-2017, but this aspect was not considered in the impugned order.
It was observed by HC that the contractual provisions were never challenged by the Petitioner. The Contract Condition No.49 specifically stipulated that if there were any subsequent increase in the tax rate, the additional amount would be reimbursed to the contractor, and conversely, if there was a reduction, the differential amount would be refunded by the contractor to the government.
Accordingly, it was held that the contractor was bound by the contractual condition providing for the reciprocal tax liability of both parties. Therefore, the assessee-contractor was liable to pay the differential amount of tax back to the J&K Govt.
Maa Amila Coal Depot v. Commissioner of State Tax, U.P.
(2025) 31 Centax 226 (Allahabad High Court)
In this case, the impugned order passed under Section 130 was challenged. The reliance was placed upon the judgment of Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar [(2024) 21 Centax 358 (All.)], wherein it was held that where excess stock is found, the appropriate recourse lies under Sections 73 and 74 of the UPGST Act, and proceedings under Section 130 of the UPGST Act are impermissible. Placing reliance upon the said Judgment, the writ was allowed.
Pankaj Polymers v. Commissioner of Delhi GST
(2025) 31 Centax 332 (Delhi High Court)
In this matter, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the assessee, alleging that it had wrongly claimed and used Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on invoices from firms that did not actually exist. After the SCN, an adverse order was passed against the assessee. The assessee contended that it never received the SCN and was not given any notice for a personal hearing. However, it was found that several notices had indeed been sent, and some of the recipients had responded and attended the hearing. The address mentioned in the SCN matched the address provided in the writ petition. The delivery report showed a remark of “no such person” at the stated address, but the assessee could not offer any reasonable explanation for this. Therefore, the Court concluded that the assessee had been given sufficient opportunity to present its case, and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
Sri Bhagavathi Granites Industries v. State of Telangana
(2025) 31 Centax 287 (Telangana High Court)
In the present case, an Order-in-Original was passed against the petitioner, who did not avail the statutory appellate remedy to challenge the said order but instead sought to contest the consequential provisional attachment of its bank account. The petitioner contended that
issuance of a DRC-07 was a mandatory requirement prior to passing the Order-in-Original; however, in this instance, the DRC-07 was issued only subsequent to the passing of the order. It was therefore argued by the petitioner that notwithstanding the fact that the Order-in-Original itself was not appealed, the resultant bank attachment being based on a procedurally defective order deserved to be set aside.
The Hon’ble High Court held that in the absence of any challenge to the Order-in-Original, no ground was made out for interference with the consequential provisional attachment. Furthermore, the writ petition had been filed beyond the period prescribed for filing an appeal under the statute. Consequently, the High Court declined to disregard the statutory limitation and refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
LATEST CIRCULARS ISSUED BY CBIC
Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST dated 24th June 2025.
This Circular clarifies the process for review, revision and appeal in respect of Orders-in-Original passed by Common Adjudicating Authorities (CAAs) involving cases investigated by the DGGI. It specifies that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Central Tax under whose jurisdiction the CAA is posted will act as the Reviewing and Revisional Authority. Appeals against such orders must be filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) of the same Commissionerate. The Circular ensures procedural consistency, removes jurisdictional ambiguities, and allows the Reviewing/Appeal Authority to seek comments from DGGI if needed. This clarification aims to streamline departmental processes and also provide taxpayers with clear guidance for filing Appeals in such matters. However, taxpayers may face practical challenges if the CAA is located far from their principal place of business.
NEWS & UPDATE FROM GSTN
Advisory to file pending returns before expiry of three years
As per the Finance Act, 2023 (8 of 2023) dt 31-03-2023 implemented w.e.f. 01-10-2023 vide Notification No. 28/2023–Central Tax dated 31st July, 2023, the taxpayers shall not be allowed to file their GST Returns after the expiry of a period of three years from the due date of furnishing the said Return under Section 37 (Outward Supply), Section 39 (Payment of Liability), Section 44 (Annual Return) and Section 52 (Tax Collected at Source). These Sections cover GSTR-1, GSR-1A, GSTR 3B, GSTR-4, GSTR-5, GSTR-5A, GSTR-6, GSTR 7, GSTR 8 and GSTR 9 or 9C.
Hence, above mentioned returns will be barred for filing after expiry of three years. The said restriction will be implemented on the GST portal from July 2025 Tax Period. Which means any return for which due date was three years back or more and hasn’t been filed till July Tax period will be barred from filling. In this regard an advisory was already issued by GSTN way back on October 29th, 2024.
LATEST CIRCULARS ISSUED BY CBIC
Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST dated 24th June 2025.
This Circular clarifies the process for review, revision and appeal in respect of Orders-in-Original passed by Common Adjudicating Authorities (CAAs) involving cases investigated by the DGGI. It specifies that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Central Tax under whose jurisdiction the CAA is posted will act as the Reviewing and Revisional Authority. Appeals against such orders must be filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) of the same Commissionerate. The Circular ensures procedural consistency, removes jurisdictional ambiguities, and allows the Reviewing/Appeal Authority to seek comments from DGGI if needed. This clarification aims to streamline departmental processes and also provide taxpayers with clear guidance for filing Appeals in such matters. However, taxpayers may face practical challenges if the CAA is located far from their principal place of business.
NEWS & UPDATE FROM GSTN
Advisory to file pending returns before expiry of three years
As per the Finance Act, 2023 (8 of 2023) dt 31-03-2023 implemented w.e.f. 01-10-2023 vide Notification No. 28/2023–Central Tax dated 31st July, 2023, the taxpayers shall not be allowed to file their GST Returns after the expiry of a period of three years from the due date of furnishing the said Return under Section 37 (Outward Supply), Section 39 (Payment of Liability), Section 44 (Annual Return) and Section 52 (Tax Collected at Source). These Sections cover GSTR-1, GSR-1A, GSTR 3B, GSTR-4, GSTR-5, GSTR-5A, GSTR-6, GSTR 7, GSTR 8 and GSTR 9 or 9C.
Hence, above mentioned returns will be barred for filing after expiry of three years. The said restriction will be implemented on the GST portal from July 2025 Tax Period. Which means any return for which due date was three years back or more and hasn’t been filed till July Tax period will be barred from filling. In this regard an advisory was already issued by GSTN way back on October 29th, 2024.
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.