Issue No. September/2025/01
In this News Letter 1st Edition of September 2025, you’ll find:
1.Ratio of Latest Judgements
2.GST News & Update
3.Exempted Goods & Services and changes with effect from 22.09.2025
4.Highlights on Recommendations of the 56th Meeting of the GST Council held
5.Latest Circular
6.GST Compliances Due Dates
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
Kanha Shree Steels v. Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Writ Tax No. 2746 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
In present facts of the case, the petitioner’s business premises were formally inspected by respondent no. 2. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for the cancellation of their registration, and the petitioner submitted a reply. Further, the petitioner’s application for revocation of the cancellation was subsequently rejected on December 31, 2024. The petitioner appealed against the said order to respondent no. 3, who allowed the appeal on March 28, 2025, but with a condition for verification of facts. Following this, respondent no. 2 asked respondent no. 1 to acknowledge the adverse facts. On May 1, 2025, respondent no. 1 informed the petitioner that the cancellation of registration would not be revoked without fulfilling the conditions from the Order dated 28.03.2025.
Therefore, the Writ Petition was filed challenging the orders dated March 28, 2025, and May 1, 2025. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the show-cause notice and the order of cancellation were “cryptic” and “without reasons in detail”. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the appellate authority’s action of remanding the case for “verification of facts” was found to be beyond its power. The court cited Section 107 of the GST Act, which explicitly states that the Appellate Authority cannot refer the case back to the adjudicating authority. The court held that once an authority concludes that the original order cannot be sustained, there is no justification for giving further direction, as this would be like giving a “second inning” to the Revenue.
Consequently, the Writ was allowed and the permission was granted to the respondents with the liberty to take a fresh course of action in accordance with the law.
Map Overseas v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO. 8229 OF 2025 (Bombay High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner, challenged an original order dated 23.05.2023 and an appellate authority’s order dated 19.12.2024. The petitioner filed an appeal against the original order on 17.10.2023. According to Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act), a person aggrieved by an order can file an appeal within three months. Section 107(4) allows the appellate authority to permit an appeal to be presented within a further period of one month if there was sufficient cause for the delay. In this case, the petitioner’s appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of four months (120 days). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority
on December 19, 2023, due to the bar of limitation. The petitioner’s argument that the original order was never communicated was not substantiated in the appeal memo or the application for condonation of delay.
The Hon’ble High Court found no fault in the appellate authority’s decision to dismiss the appeal. The court emphasized that its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used to bypass the legislative intent behind the limitation periods specified in the CGST Act. The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court, including Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors Vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, and ONGC vs Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, which established that a High Court cannot exercise its power to entertain an appeal that was not filed within the prescribed or maximum condonable period. The court also referred to the Division Bench decision in Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs Union of India, which held that when a statute provides a specific limitation period and an extended period, the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Mlv Constructions vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Govt of U.P. Lko. and Another, WRIT TAX No. 752 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner, filed a writ petition seeking to quash two orders: MOV-09 dated June 27, 2025, and GST Form GST MOV-09 dated July 3, 2025. The case arose from the seizure of goods and a vehicle on June 21, 2025. During a previous hearing, the court was informed by the Assistant Commissioner, that a show-cause notice had been issued to the owner of the goods, but no one came forward to claim them, leading to an ex parte order against the driver. The court noted that the instructions provided by the Assistant Commissioner did not include any show-cause notice issued to the consignee or consignor. In a subsequent hearing, the Assistant Commissioner changed his explanation, stating he had “presumed” the owner would be contacted by the driver and would come forward to pay the penalty.
The court found a clear violation of Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), which mandates that a proper officer must issue a notice to the owner of the goods within seven days of a detention or seizure. The court noted that no notice was served on the petitioner, M/s MLV Constructions, as the owner of the goods. The Assistant Commissioner’s contradictory statements—first claiming a notice was sent and later admitting to a mere “presumption”— was deemed to be taken as misleading. The court also observed that the officer did not seem to be possess adequate knowledge about the Act under which he was taking action. Due to the clear violation of statutory provisions, the court set aside both impugned orders and directed the respondents to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner within one week. The court also instructed the Commissioner to send the Assistant Commissioner for three months of training to ensure he is well-versed with the provisions of the Act.
Nikhil Trade v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, Writ Tax No. 3812 of 2025, (Allahabad High Court)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner submitted that the business premises of the petitioner was surveyed on 23.02.2024 and on the basis of the said survey, proceedings under section 130, read with section 122 of the GST Act were initiated against the petitioner. He further submits that at the time of survey, without there being any actual weightment, the allegation of excess stock was made. He further submits that the authorities below ought to have proceeded under sections 73/74 of the GST Act and therefore, the instant proceedings are bad in law and liable to be set aside. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the GST Act is a complete Code in itself. A specific provision has been contemplated that if the goods are not recorded in the books of account, then the Proper Officer shall proceed as per the provision of sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Once the Act specifically contemplates that action to be taken, then the provision of section 130 of the GST Act cannot be pressed into service.
The Hon’ble High Court relied upon the Judgment of Vijay Trading Company Vs. Additional Commissioner & Another, Writ Tax No. 1278/2024 and have observed that held that the proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be put to service in case excess stock is found at the time of survey.
Ruhi Siraj Makda Proprietor of Aries Impex v. Union of India & Anr., R/Special Civil Application No. 2507 of 2023, (Gujarat High Court)
The petitioner, filed this writ under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking refund of IGST amounting to ₹9,48,549/- paid on export of goods during April–September 2018, along with interest at 9%. The refund was denied due to a typographical error while filing GSTR-1, wherein IGST was wrongly entered as zero under Table 6A, though the tax was correctly reflected in GSTR-3B and duly paid. Because of this error, the customs ICEGATE system showed nil refund. The petitioner made representations in 2020 and 2021 with supporting documents including export invoices, shipping bills, payment challans, and CA certificates, but the authorities did not process the refund.
The respondents argued that refund could not be sanctioned since the petitioner failed to amend GSTR-1, and the automated system processed refund as nil. They claimed the refund was not “withheld” but processed as per the data filed by the petitioner.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that there was no dispute regarding the fact of exports and IGST payment. Relying on its earlier ruling in Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (2019) 107 taxmann.com 167 (Gujarat), the Court held that refund can only be withheld in limited circumstances under Rule 96(4) of the CGST Rules, and clerical or technical mistakes in GST returns cannot deprive a genuine exporter of refund.
The Court further observed that circulars or system limitations cannot override statutory provisions, and authorities are bound to process refund claims in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the GST Rules. The respondent’s stand that the system auto-generated nil refund was rejected as unsustainable. Consequently, the Court directed the authorities to immediately sanction the refund of IGST with statutory interest from the date of shipping bills until the date of actual refund.
Thus, the writ petition was allowed, reiterating that genuine exporters cannot be denied IGST refunds on account of clerical errors or system-generated mismatches.
Sekar Stores v. State Tax Officer & Others, WP No. 29685 of 2025, (Madras High Court)In present facts of the case, a voluntary request was made by the petitioner for cancellation of GST Registration which was cancelled on 11.04.2022. Subsequent to the said cancellation, all notices/communications were uploaded in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
The Hon’ble High Court held that that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice. It was further observed that when there was no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, it was observed that there was lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.
Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent.
GST NEWS & UPDATES Goods Industry – Changes in Rate Notifications with effect from 22.09.2025
SL NOTE: 1. In case where the item has been exempted with effect from 22nd September 2025 and earlier such item was taxable till 21st September 2025, then No ITC refund would be available on stock of such goods as available on 21st September 2025. Further on outward supply of such items on 22nd September 2025 or any date after 21st September, the ITC on such exempted goods would need to be reversed under Rule 42 or 43.
2. In cases where the rate of tax has reduced from higher rate to a lower rate then balance of ITC in Electronic Credit Ledger on stock of such goods as available on 21st September 2025 would not be treated as Inverted Duty Structure and no refund would be given to such taxpayers. Such ITC can only be adjusted in payment of outward tax liability by such taxpayers.
3. Wherever the rate of tax has been reduced on the goods or services or such goods have been exempted the taxpayers dealing in such goods or service must calculate their pricing / MRP of goods or services considering the restrictions in refund of such balance ITC on stock as well as reduction of GST Rate on raw materials/purchases as well as reduction of tax rate on outward supply / sale of such goods or services. Exempted Goods & Services and changes with effect from 22.09.2025
Highlights on Recommendations of the 56th Meeting of the GST Council held at New Delhi on 3rd September, 2025
Circular No. 251/08/2025 – GST dated 12th September 2025 Input Tax Credit on Financial/Commercial Credit Notes When a supplier issues a financial or commercial credit note to a recipient, the recipient is still entitled to the full Input Tax Credit (ITC). This is because the original transaction value and the corresponding tax charged are not reduced by the issuance of these notes. Therefore, the recipient is not required to reverse the ITC attributed to the discount. Post-Sale Discounts from Manufacturer to Dealer · Discounts for Competitive Pricing: When a manufacturer provides a post-sale discount to a dealer to help with competitive pricing and boost sales, this is not considered a “consideration” for an inducement to supply goods to an end customer. The manufacturer-dealer relationship is on a principal-to-principal basis, and the discount simply reduces the sale price of the goods. · Discounts with an Agreement: However, if a manufacturer has an existing agreement with an end customer to sell goods at a discounted price, and the manufacturer issues a commercial or financial credit note to the dealer to enable this, the discount is considered part of the overall consideration. This is seen as an inducement for the dealer’s supply of goods to the end customer. Discounts as Consideration for Promotional Activities · No Separate Service: Generally, post-sale discounts given by manufacturers to dealers are not treated as a consideration for a separate service, such as promotional activities. The circular clarifies that any promotional activities undertaken by dealers primarily serve to boost their own sales and revenue, and the discount is just a reduction in the sale price. · GST Levied on Specific Services: GST would be leviable if the dealer undertakes specific, distinct services for the manufacturer, such as advertising campaigns or co-branding, and these services are explicitly defined in an agreement with a clearly stated consideration. In this case, the dealer is providing a separate, chargeable service to the supplier. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN OCTOBER 2025 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Aug, 2025) Sep 20th, 2025
| GSTR-3B (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 22nd, 24th, 2025
| GSTR-5 (Aug, 2025) Sep 13th, 2025
| GSTR-5A (Aug, 2025) Sep 20th, 2025
|
GSTR-1 (Aug 2025) Sep 11th, 2025
| GSTR-1 (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 13th, 2025
| GSTR-6 (Aug, 2025) Sep 13th, 2025
| GSTR-7 (Aug, 2025) Sep 10th, 2025
|
IFF (Optional) (Aug,2025) Sep 13th, 2025
| CMP-08 (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 18th, 2025
| GSTR-8 (Aug, 2025) Sep 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.© 1981-2025 Sharnam Legal, All rights reserved