In this News Letter 1st Edition of May 2025, you’ll find:
1. Ratio of Latest Judgements
2. GST News & Updates
3. GST Compliances Due Dates
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited vs. Commercial State Tax Officer (W.P.No.1114 of 2025) (Madras High Court)
The core issue involved in this matter is whether the service of notices and communications as well as uploading documents to the ‘common portal’ constitutes sufficient service to the assessee. The petitioners argued that the ‘common portal’ is not a “designated computer resource” under the IT Act, and therefore, receipt only occurs when the assessee retrieves the record.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that Notices uploaded in the ‘GST common portal’ are deemed sufficient service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act. The ‘common portal’ is considered a designated computer resource for the assessee, and receipt of notices occurs when the electronic records enter the portal. Further, it was observed that the service via the ‘common portal’ is legally sufficient, but always not effective. The respondents were directed to adopt alternative modes of service, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD), especially when no response is received for notices uploaded in the ‘common portal’.
Accordingly, the Revenue was directed to issue clear notices, provide opportunities for personal hearings, and decide the matters in accordance with the law to balance the legal sufficiency of service with the practical effectiveness of communication, ensuring fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice.
D & D Construction and Developers Company vs. Additional Commissioner and Others (WRIT TAX No. 1384 of 2022 & 1383 of 2022) (Allahabad High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court over the seizure and penalty imposed on the petitioner for transporting a Compactor Machine without proper documents. The petitioner argued that the machinery was being transferred for its own use between its head office in Rajasthan and a work site in Uttar Pradesh, and therefore, no sale was involved.
The court ruled in favour of the petitioner, stating that since the transfer was between the company’s own units and not a sale, no tax evasion could be attributed. The court places its reliance over the Judgment of M/s Vacmet India Ltd. and Shyam Sel & Power Limited, wherein it was held that intent to evade tax is necessary for initiating proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned Orders were quashed.
Devendra Kumar Singh Contractor vs. Union of India and others (WRIT TAX No. 1606 of 2025) (Allahabad High Court)
The Petitioner approached Hon’ble High Court through Writ Petition as he was issued an order demanding Rs. 33,17,688/- under Section 73(9). The petitioner argued that they shouldn’t be liable for the GST payment because of an agreement with Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited (respondent no. 3), where the latter agreed to pay the GST. However, the court found that the petitioner’s reliance on this agreement and the reverse charge mechanism under Section 9 of the GST Act was unsubstantiated.
The court stated that the liability to pay GST rests with the supplier i.e. the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
M.N. Ghosh & Sons vs. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax (W.P.(T) No. 3408 of 2024) (Jharkhand High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner filed a Writ challenging Order related to the cancellation of their GST registration. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled due to failure of filing Returns for six months. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed as time-barred under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the illness of a partner.
The Hon’ble High Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, stating that it was filed beyond the permissible time limit under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court places its reliance over the Judgment of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur” (2008) 3 SCC 70, wherein it was observed that appellate authorities cannot condone delays beyond the statutory period. The High Court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the cancellation of the GST registration or the appellate order. Accordingly, the Writ was dismissed.
Oswal Petrochemicals LTD. vs. Commissioner of Customs (2025) 29 Centax 451 (S.C.) [Supreme Court]
The issue pertains to the classification of Benzene and Toluene for excise duty purposes. The Appellant initially classified these products under a sub-heading that allowed for a lower duty. The excise department later re-classified the products based on chemical test reports, leading to a higher duty demand. The Appellant argued that the department’s failure to provide copies of these test reports violated principle of natural justice and denied them the right to seek a re-test.
The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the department was obligated to provide the test reports to the assessee adhering to natural justice principles in excise duty cases, particularly regarding the disclosure of evidence relied upon for re-classification of goods. If the test report would not be provided then it would result into the breach of Rule 56 (2) and Rule 56 (4) of the Central Excise Rules. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in favour of the Petitioner.
Prabin Jha vs. Union of India (2025) 29 Centax 244 (Gau.) [Gauhati High Court]
In present facts of the case, the bail application was filed by the Applicant who was arrested in connection with a case under Section 132(5). The case involves allegations of issuing fake invoices without the actual supply of goods and thereby passing ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The Applicant argued that there was non-compliance with Section 41/41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) at the time of arrest. They also pointed out that the Document Identification Numbers (DINs) were not mentioned in the Authorization Letter/Grounds of Arrest, as required by Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST. Additionally, the “reasons to believe” for the arrest were not communicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest or while furnishing the grounds of arrest.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that while the Arrest Memo was issued with all necessary formalities under Section 69 of the CGST Act, there was non-compliance with Section 41/41A of Cr.P.C. and Sections 47/48 of BNSS. Further, it was observed that the DIN numbers were missing from the Authorization Letter and Grounds of Arrest, although it was present in the Arrest Memo, possibly added later. The Court also found that while the “reasons to believe” were recorded in the file, they were not communicated to the petitioner, which is necessary to allow the petitioner to challenge the legality of the arrest. Therefore, due to such lacunas, the Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Rajlaxmi Construction vs. Executive Engineer, Hooghly Highway Division No.1 (2025) 29 Centax 187 (Cal.) [Calcutta High Court]
In present facts of the case, the issue pertains to contractors who completed work and submitted bills before the implementation of GST on July 1, 2017. However, due to a lack of funds, the payment of these bills was delayed and ultimately made on March 31, 2018, during the GST regime. The contractors sought reimbursement for the GST they paid to the government.
The Hon’ble High Court ruled in favour of the contractors. It stated that the department’s initial admission in the affidavit and internal notes established the liability for GST reimbursement. The court found that the department’s subsequent denial was inconsistent with its earlier acceptance. Further, the court directed the department to reimburse the GST amounts to the contractors within twelve weeks. It also ordered that if the reimbursement was not made within this period, the contractors would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum. Accordingly, the Writ was allowed.
Rohan Corporation India Pvt Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others (WP No. 12700 of 2023) [Karnataka High Court]
The issue pertains to the applicability of GST on partially constructed building. The petitioner purchased the building on an “as is where is” basis from a liquidator and paid GST under protest, later seeking a refund. The petitioner differentiates between a “service contract” and a “composite works contract,” relying on the Judgment of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the transaction was a sale of immovable property, not a supply of goods or services, and thus fell under Entry 5 of Schedule III of the CGST Act, which excludes such transactions from GST. It clarified that GST applies only to construction services or works contracts where there is a service element, which was absent in this case. The court quashed the rejection order of the refund claim, directed the respondents to refund Rs. 14.32 crores along with applicable interest and emphasized that stamp duty transactions remain outside the GST regime. Accordingly, the Writ was allowed.
Satyam Traders vs. State of U.P. (2025) 29 Centax 246 (All.) [Allahabad High Court]
In present facts of the case, the issue pertains to the detention of goods and imposition of penalty under the GST Act primarily because the original invoice was not present with the goods; instead, a photocopy was available. Additionally, there was a slight discrepancy in the weight of the truck, which was weighed two days after the detention, with the weight being 270 kilograms more than the weight shown in the invoice. The petitioner explained that the e-way bill was correctly generated and present with the goods, and a photocopy of the invoice was also available. The petitioner attributed the difference in weight to rain that occurred in the two days after the detention, arguing that the weight difference was negligible, only about 1%.
The Hon’ble High Court places its reliance over Assistant Commissioner (ST) And Others v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt Ltd and a decision by a coordinate bench of the same court in Gobind Tabacco Manufacturing Co. & Another vs State of U.P. and have observed that the detention proceedings and the penalty order were not justified. The court reasoned that since a photocopy of the invoice and the e-way bill were present and matched each other, there was no intention to evade tax. The court emphasized that imposing a penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act requires evidence of an intention to evade tax. Accordingly, the Writ was allowed.
Sree Viswa Sai Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax (2025) 29 Centax 190 (A.P.)
In present facts of the case, the issue pertains to whether an assessment order is valid if it does not contain the signature of the assessing officer. The assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer.
The High Court places its reliance over the Judgment of A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, and SRS Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors and have held that that an assessment order under the GST Act is invalid if it does not contain the assessing officer’s signature. The court stated that a signature on an assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. It also held that this defect cannot be rectified under Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was set aside. However, it granted liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment, provided that proper notice is given to the petitioner and the new order contains the assessing officer’s signature. The court also directed that the period from the date of the impugned assessment order until the date of receipt of the court’s order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Accordingly, the Writ was disposed of.
Trinity Clean Tech Pvt Ltd. v Union of India (2025) 29 Centax 192 (AP) [Andhra Pradesh High Court]
In present facts of the case, the petitioner was issued a summons under Section 70 of the GST Act seeking information and documents. The petitioner attended the office with the required materials but claimed they were forced to sign documents without being provided copies. A communication letter informed the petitioner that they could reduce their tax liability by paying the unpaid GST along with 15% of the tax as a penalty. The petitioner argued that this communication led to the initiation of demand proceedings, which the officer was not authorized to initiate.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the communication did not create any liability or initiate proceedings against the petitioner. It was simply an informational notice allowing the petitioner to reduce liability by paying the tax and penalty voluntarily
NEWS & UPDATE
The “GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025” have been notified on 25.04.2025. In our Newsletter GST दिशा we would be bringing a new topic in each Newsletter which pertains to “GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025”. In this newsletter we would be discussing about “Authorised Representative”.
Note on ‘Authorized Representative’ (as per the GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025)
Rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of “GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025” lay down Rule pertaining to appearance of the “authorized representative” as a person authorised in writing or through a vakalatnama, duly stamped, by a party to present the case on their behalf before the Appellate Tribunal.
Section 116 of the CGST Act states about the definition of ‘authorized representative’ which includes Chartered Accountants, Cost Accountants, Company Secretaries as well as GST Tax Practitioner apart from Advocates, which would not be aligned with the present position of appearance only by an Advocate before the Higher Judicial Forums, as GSTAT is also a Judicial body and most important of all in certain matters the Appeal against the Order of National Bench/ Regional Bench of GSTAT would directly lie to Hon’ble Supreme Court that means in certain matters GSTAT would be playing the sacrosanct role equivalent to High Courts. Therefore, appearance or representations before GSTAT by persons other than Advocates registered with Bar Council and having legal acumen could undermine the purpose of such a high institution like GSTAT.
The “authorised representative” expected to have legal expertise plays a crucial role in facilitating the qualitative participation of parties in the appellate process before the GSTAT. They act as the formal link between the petitioner party and the Tribunal, ensuring that the party’s case involving interplay of different laws is effectively presented and pursued within the norms of legal practice. Further, the adoption of Section 116 of CGST Act for allowing all of the categories of representatives to appear, plead or act for the Petitioner in the proceedings could damage the sacrosanct image of the GSTAT.
It is important to note that although Advocates, Chartered Accountants, Cost Accountants and Company Secretaries are regulated through their respective Regulatory bodies like Bar Councils, ICAI, ICWAI and ICSI respectively, but there is no effective regulation for GST Tax Practitioners who is just authorized to appear by virtue of Section 48 read with Section 116 of CGST Act & Rule 83 of CGST Rules.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN MAY 2025 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Apr 2025) May 20th, 2025 | GSTR-3B (Apr-June, 2025)-Jul 22nd, 24th, 2025 | GSTR-5 (Apr 2025) May 13th, 2025 | GSTR-5A (Apr, 2025) May 20th, 2025 |
GSTR-1 (Apr , 2025) May 11th, 2025 | GSTR-1 (Apr-June, 2025) Jul 13th, 2025 | GSTR-6 (Apr 2025)
May 13th, 2025 | GSTR-7 (Apr 2025)
May 10th, 2025 |
IFF (Optional) (Apr ,2025) May 13th, 2025 | CMP-08 (Apr-June, 2025) Jul 18th, 2025 | GSTR-8 (Apr, 2025)
May 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.