GST Weekly Flashback: 16 To 22 March 2025

The Goods and Service Tax (GST) Weekly Flashback for the period 16 to 22 March 2025.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing on Gaming Industry’s Challenge to 28% GST

The Supreme Court adjourned the much-anticipated hearing on the controversial 28% Goods and Services Tax (GST) imposed on gaming industry.

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Stays GST Imposition on CCI

In a significant relief to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the Delhi High Court on granted a stay on the imposition of Goods and Services Tax (GST), including interest and penalties, on the Commission for the consideration received from various parties involved in disputes before it.

The bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the interim order in response to a writ petition filed by the CCI.

GST Dept. Can’t Delay Adjudication Indefinitely | Legal Obligation to Expedite Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department cannot delay adjudication indefinitely and it is their legal obligation to expedite proceedings.

The bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has relied on the decision in the case of Vos Technologies India (P) Ltd. v. Director General in which it was held that matters having financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept unresolved for years; and the phrase “where it is possible to do so” cannot be a license to keep matters pending for years. Theflexibility provided by the legislation is not meant to be overused or construed as sanctioning indolence. The statutory leverage cannot be brought into play routinely and in an unfettered manner for years, without any due justification or explanation.

Madras High Court

Madras High Court Condones 210 Days Delay In Filing GST Appeal Subject To 25% Pre-Deposit

The Madras High Court has condoned the delay of 210 days in filing goods and service tax (GST) appeal subject to 25% of pre-deposit.

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appeared to be genuine. For filing the appeal, the writ petitioner had already paid 10% of statutory pre-deposit. Since there occurred a huge delay, petitioner was directed to pay 15% in addition to the 10% pre-deposit for condonation of delay.

Refund Claim Can’t Be Denied Citing Retrospective Operation Of Proviso To Rule 90(3) Of CGST Rules: Madras High Court Grants Relief To Gillette

In a major relief to Gillette, the Madras High Court has held that the refund claim cannot be denied citing retrospective operation of proviso to Rule 90(3) Of CGST Rules.

The bench of Justice C.Saravanan has observed that the Proviso to Rule 90(3) was inserted with effect from 18.05.2021 vide Notification No.15/2021-CT dated 18.05.2021. It was not in the statute where refund claims were originally filed or later represented. Therefore, it cannot be given retrospective effect.

Rs. 108 Crore GST Evasion: Madras High Court Grants Bail Subject To Rs. 5 Lakh Bond

The Madras High Court has granted the bail to the accused in GST Evasion of Rs. 108 Crore in Chennai subject to the furnishing of the bond of Rs. 5 Lakhs.

The bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has observed that onerous conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail. Hence, the court is inclined to grant interim stay of the condition imposed in para 10(a) of the trial court order. Insofar as, condition No.10(c), it is modified, directing the petitioner to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

Financial Liability And Penal Cases Can’t Remain Unresolved For Years; Delhi High Court Cautions GST Dept. Against Indolence In Statutory Flexibility

The Delhi High Court has cautioned the GST Department against indolence in statutory flexibility and held that the financial liability and penal cases cannot remain unresolved for years.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has relied on the decision in the case of Vos Technologies India (P) Ltd. v. Director General in which it was held that matters having financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept unresolved for years; and the phrase “where it is possible to do so” cannot be a license to keep matters pending for years. The flexibility provided by the legislation is not meant to be misused or construed as sanctioning indolence. The statutory leverage cannot be brought into play routinely and in an unfettered manner for years, without any due justification or explanation.

Kerala High Court

GST ITC Claims: September Return Filing Deadline to Be Considered as November 30 From 01/07/2017 Onwards: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the time limit for furnishing the return for the month of September is to be treated as 30th November in each financial year with effect from 01.07.2017, in respect of the petitioners who had filed their returns for the month of September on or before 30th November, and their claim for ITC should be processed, if they are otherwise eligible for Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Taxpayers Eligible For Late Fee Waiver Even if GSTR-9, GSTR-9C Filed Before Amnesty Notification: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the taxpayers are eligible for late fee waiver even if GSTR-9 (annual return) and GSTR-9C (reconciliation statement) filed before amnesty notification.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya has observed that it would be unjust to deny the benefit to the petitioner merely because the petitioner filed the return prior to the issuance of the amnesty notification dated 31.03.2023, confinedto amnesty only to those who filed the return between 01.04.2023 and 30.06.2023.