In this News Letter 2nd Edition of November 2025, you’ll find:
1.RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
2.DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN DECEMBER 2025
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
NEW GEE ENN & SONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., WP(C) 1938 OF 2024 (J&K High Court- Srinagar Bench)
The Hon’ble Court was hearing writ petitions filed by traders who had engaged in barter/supply transactions with persons across the LoC within the state of Jammu and Kashmir during 2017–2019. The petitioners challenged the show-cause notices issued by tax authorities demanding GST, challenging the territorial issues as well as supply classification and other legal grounds. The Petitioners contested that as per Notification dated 20th October 2008, the Home Ministry of the Government of India (J&K Division), allowed free trade in the LoC Area. The intra-state sales tax was thus governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Value Added Taxes Act, 2005. Section 55 of the VAT Act, 2005, which was amended on 7th February, 2012 categorically provided that the cross-LoC trade would be considered as a zero-rated sale not liable to VAT in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The cross-LoC trade was thus carried by the petitioners and other traders without payment of any sale or purchase tax. But there was no such exemption provided by the Government under the J&K GST Act 2017. The area of the State presently under de-facto control of Pakistan is integral part of territories of the State of Jammu & Kashmir thus such trade across LoC is considered as intra state trade within the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the purposes of GST. The petitioners without support of a Notification under GST continued to treat cross-LoC trade as a zero-rated sale, attracting no sale tax however such traders did not indicated their cross-LoC transactions in their GST Return, nor did they pay any sales tax on this account during the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. Due to this reason the petitioners were issued Demand Notices that too initiating extended period of limitation u/s 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Hon’ble JK & L High Court dismissed the said Petition and went to the extent of citing the relevant applicable Articles & Schedule of the Constitution of India, it was held that the area across LoC and other parts of the Union Territory of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh as mentioned in the Constitution of India is an integral part of India. Thus, trade in those area to be treated as Intra-State Trade. The Hon’ble High Court, however gave all the parties 4 weeks-time to file reply to the SCN and further granted a three month time to the Department to dispose the matter logically with the reasoned order. The JK High Court also maintained and reserved the Petitioner’s right to Appeal u/s 107 of the GST Act.
VIMLESH KUMAR CONTRACTOR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., WRIT TAX NO. 1021 OF 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner herein works under a work contract faced a show-cause notice issued on 31.01.2024 regarding FY 2018–19. The department alleged a discrepancy between the turnover declared in GSTR-3B and the income shown in the Form 26AS, this was based on Income Tax data. Crucially, this notice was only uploaded in the “Additional Notice and Order” tab on the portal; the petitioner was unaware of this upload thus, they couldn’t file a reply. Consequently, an exparte order was passed on 28.04.2024, demanding tax, interest, and penalty.
The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on 21.01.2025 without proper consideration of the evidence thereby they moved to the High Court. The petitioner in their defence argued that the income shown in Form 26AS was payment for work finished during A.Y. 2015–16 and 2016–17 which is strictly within the VAT regime & before GST was implemented. Even though the payment arrived later, the supply itself did not happen under the GST Act, meaning the authorities lacked jurisdiction under GST law.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court upon reviewing original records confirmed that the contracts were executed under the VAT regime as well as clarified that GST authorities do not have the power to initiate proceedings under Section 73 to levy tax on payments received post-GST if the work was actually completed during the VAT regime. The Bench criticised the authorities for initiating action based solely on a mismatch between GSTR-3B and Form 26AS without verifying the nature or period of the supply. The Court ruled that receiving consideration after 01.07.2017 does not trigger GST liability if the actual execution occurred earlier. Since the supply happened under VAT, the authorities had no jurisdiction under Section 73 to demand tax. A data mismatch alone is not proof of liability; the department acted arbitrarily by not consulting VAT Assessing Authorities or reviewing the underlying records.
Consequently, the Court quashed the Section 73 notice, the ex parte order and the appellate order, declaring them illegal. It ordered that any amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded with interest within one month.
VINAYAK INTERNATIONAL HOUSEWARE PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., WP(C) 3154/2023, 3165/2023, 10687/2023 & CM. APPL. 41448 OF 2023 (Delhi High Court)
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the current petition had clubbed three different petitions of the Petitioner, wherein the High Court was faced with a common question of applicability of the Notification No. 20/2024 Central Tax [G.S.R. 626(E)/F. NO. CBIC-20006/20/2023-GST], dated 8-10-2024 omitting Rule 96(10) from the CGST Rules, 2017. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court vide judgement of Sance Laboratories declared the Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules,2017 as ultra vires. However, the question placed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was that weather or not Notification No. 20/2024 dated 8-10-2024 omitting Rule 96(10) from the CGST Rules, 2017 is retrospective in its application or not.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, citing the Judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 31 Centax 274 (Guj.), wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court facing the same issue gave the Notification No. 20/2024 Dated 8-10-2024 a prospective effect but the Hon’ble Court have extended its applicability to all the pending proceedings/cases where final adjudication has not taken place. i.e. the omission of Rule 96(10) would apply to all the proceedings/cases/ petitions which are pending for adjudication either before this Court or before the adjudicating authority and no further proceedings are required to be carried forward.
SEARICH FREIGHT FORWARDING PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Vs. GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER, WP(C) 16014 OF 2025 & CM. APPL. 6516 OF 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Petitioner herein is a freight-forwarding partnership firm which challenged the provisional attachment of its bank accounts, alleging that the attachment was issued by a non-jurisdictional GST officer. The Authorities alleged that the firm was connected to entities involved in large-scale fraudulent GST refund claims, and that it had benefitted by approx. ₹95 lakh out of a ₹65-crore fraud executed by misusing a GST officer’s login credentials.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the basis of the Revenue’s affidavit showing that the partner repeatedly ignored summons from both the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and GST Authorities, temporarily impleaded the EOW and directed the assessee to reveal all bank account details. Further, the Hon’ble Court was shocked when the partner admitted that the firm recorded ₹100-crore turnover within a year with only 5 employees, remarking that the firm appeared to be abusing statutory GST benefits.
However, since the assessee showed willingness to pursue the statutory remedy under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, the Court refrained from deciding the validity of the attachment, disposed of the writ petition, and directed the assessee to fully cooperate with EOW and GST Authorities, giving liberty to the Government to return to Court if non-compliance continued.
EVES FASHION Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., WP(C) 17911 OF 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Herein the petitioner’s failure to file returns and reply to the SCN was found to be rooted in bona fide difficulties due to a dispute with the accountant who held exclusive login credentials and subsequent inability to access the GST portal which was further aggravated by COVID-related health complications. Although the assessee repeatedly sought new login credentials and the department briefly re-enabled portal access but later refused to restore registration and rejected the statutory appeal as time-barred was held to be unfair in the given factual context.
While acknowledging that the SCN should have been replied to and compliance delays were prolonged. The Hon’ble Delhi Court held that the peculiar facts justified judicial relief to prevent unjust denial of rights. The Delhi High Court thereby restored the assessee’s cancelled GSTIN (originally obtained in July 2017), holding that strict limitation norms should not defeat substantive rights where genuine obstacles prevented compliance. Thereby, ordered the department to reactivate the GSTIN, provide fresh login credentials, enable portal access for all pending returns and allow payment of outstanding tax and late fees after the assessee affirming commitment to immediate compliance.
J M JAIN PROP SH JEETMAL CHORARIA Vs. UOI, WP(C) 16754 OF 2025 & CM. APPL. 68768 OF 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Herein, the Petitioner challenged GST notice (SCN) was issued based on intelligence from the Income Tax Department regarding a clandestine server and parallel accounting.
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of the SCN as an SCN based on information from another department following an independent scrutiny is valid. However, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the assessment proceeding.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court cautioned Revenue authorities after detecting fake/non-existent judgments cited in the SCN which might have been sourced through AI tools, Hon’ble Court further stressed that while AI may be used for analysis or summaries, all judicial citations must undergo human verification to prevent reliance on hallucinated precedents.
IMAGINE MARKETING LIMITED VS JOINT COMMISSIONER CGST APPEALS II DELHI & ANR, W.P.(C) 17699 OF 2025 & CM APPL. 73120 OF 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court restored the GST registration of Imagine Marketing Ltd (boAt), holding that the cancellation order lacked basic reasoning and violated fundamental principles of adjudication. The Court termed the Superintendent’s approach “cavalier” and “perverse,” noting that replies and documents filed by the taxpayer were ignored and orders appeared computer-generated without application of mind. The Court highlighted that the cancellation order provided no reasons for effecting cancellation retrospectively from 15 October 2024, rendering the decision arbitrary.
The Hon’ble High Court stressed that when returns and forms are already accessible on the GST system, repeatedly asking the taxpayer to furnish the same is unjustified and burdensome. The Court underscored that adjudicating authorities must show fairness especially where the taxpayer is a regular filer and has submitted replies and documents in time failing which judicial intervention and costs may be imposed. A cost of ₹25,000 was levied personally on the Superintendent.
LAXMI GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. W.P.A. NO 20364 OF 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court herein set aside the Appellate Authority’s order, as it failed to justify the reasons as to assessee’s claim of IGST ITC in Form GSTR-9 could not be considered when the corresponding claim got missed in GSTR-3B (May–July 2018) due to a bonafide mistake. The Appellate findings were termed erroneous and unreasoned, as it merely concluded that the assessee’s plea lacked logic and documentation without specifying which documents were missing. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority did not explain why ITC disclosed in GSTR-9 cannot benefit the assessee or why it could not be adjusted against CGST/SGST liability raised by the department.
The Hon’ble High Court highlighted that the assessee had already responded to the Section 73 SCN, explaining the inadvertent error, and held that the Appellate Authority failed to consider this defence properly. Further, reliance was also placed on the DB ruling of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the matter of Pioneer Co-operative Car Parking Services & Constructions Society Ltd vs. State of West Bengal (2025) 27 Centax 70 (Cal.). The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, directing the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks, and specifically to consider the assessee’s subsequent payment of ₹83.60 lakh after disposal of the appeal.
DEVI INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS VS. COMMISSIONER CGST, W.P.(C) 15874 OF 2025 & CM APPL. 64948 OF 2025 & 64949 OF 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Herein, the assessee was denied input tax credit (ITC) on the allegation that invoices were issued without actual supply of goods by the vendor-company, despite the assessee having availed ITC based on valid invoices. A show-cause notice was issued for three financial years of 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. The assessee submitted a reply, but the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and issued DRC-07 orders. The assessee pointed out that DRC-07 issued for 2017-18 and 2019-20 were identical to the 2018-19 demand even though only one transaction occurred between the parties during 2018-19, thus, making the other two demands duplicate and non-existent in fact.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed the multiple notices based on same transaction as being unjustified as no transactions attracting ITC existed in 2017-18 and 2019-20, issuing DRC-07 for those years was legally untenable. Thus, DRC-07 for FY 2017-18 and 2019-20 were quashed, while the demand for FY 2018-19 was upheld, being the only period linked to an actual transaction between the assessee and the supplier
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN NOVEMBER 2025 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Nov, 2025) Dec 20th, 2025
| GSTR-3B (Oct-Dec, 2025) Jan 22nd, 24th, 2026 | GSTR-5 (Nov, 2025) Dec 13th, 2025
| GSTR-5A (Nov, 2025) Dec 20th, 2025
|
GSTR-1 (Nov, 2025) Dec 11th, 2025
| GSTR-1 (Oct-Dec, 2025) Jan 13th, 2026 | GSTR-6 (Nov, 2025) Dec 13th, 2025
| GSTR-7 (Nov, 2025) Dec 10th, 2025
|
IFF (Optional) (Nov,2025) Dec 13th, 2025
| CMP-08 (Oct-Dec, 2025) Jan 18th, 2026
| GSTR-8 (Nov, 2025) Dec 10th, 2025
| RFD-10 2 years from the last day of the quarter in which supply was received |
GSTR-9 (FY 2024-25) Dec 31st, 2025 | GSTR-9C (FY 2024-25) Dec 31st, 2025 |
| |
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.