Snapshot-17-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Power to call for additional documents for processing refund (Circular No. 125/44/2019)
-Demand created against Recipient although tax deposited by supplier
-Amount received as part of consideration for distribution to Employees

17.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Reffered

1

Section
54

Can the Proper
officer call for
documents in
addition to what
have been
prescribed under
Circular No.
125/44/2019 Dated
18th November
2019

SRG Plastic Company v.
Commissioner Delhi
Goods and Services Tax
Trade and Tax Department
[2023] 150 taxmann.com 261
(Delhi

-If an application for refund is accompanied by all relevant documents as prescribed under Rule 89 of
the Rules and Circular No. 125/44/2019 Dated 18th November 2019, the said application cannot be
rejected as incomplete and is required to be processed.
-However, that does not preclude the concerned officer from calling upon the applicant to furnish any
other relevant documents that he considers necessary for processing the application for refund. The
High Court thus held that it was incorrect on the part of petitioner to state that he was not required to
submit the documents as sought for by the Proper Officer.
-Since the petitioner had provided most of the relevant documents as also the fact that if the Appellate
Tribunal was constituted, the petitioner would be entitled to seek an opportunity to furnish the relevant
documents before the Tribunal; thus the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the
matter to the Proper Officer

-

2

Section
16

Demand created
against the
petitioner even
though Tax was
already paid by the
supplier

Gajrar Singh Ranawat v.
Union of India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 260
(Rajasthan)

It was contended by the petitioner that supplier has already paid GST on the supplied items, however,
ignoring the same, order has been passed for return of Input Tax Credit. The Department counsel
also submitted that the matter may be remanded for afresh adjudication after taking into consideration
the fact that the GST on the supplied items has already been paid by the suppliers.
The High Court thereafter observing that the petitioner although initially raised but subsequently has
not pressed for reliefs for declaring the provisions of Section 16(2)(aa), 16(2)(c) of the Act of 2017 and
Rule 36(4) of the Rules of 2017 as unconstitutional quashed and set aside the order and directed the
officer to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

-

3

Section
15

Taxability of
amount received
as Bonus from the
service recipient
as part of
consideration for
being distributed
to Employees

Foodsutra Art of Spices
(P.) Ltd. [2023] 150
taxmann.com 259 (AARTELANGANA)

The applicant was receiving regular amounts on canteen services provided by them and annually they
also received further amounts with the nomenclature of bonus. The bonus received from service
recipient was meant to be paid to their employees and if the applicant retained a portion of the Lump
Sum amount received for payment of bonus, then as per applicant he was liable to pay GST at the
rate applicable to Intermediary services on the commission retained and for rest of the amount he was
liable to pay GST at rate of 5%, which was arrived after excluding the commission from the entire
bonus, as it would be included as value of supply of canteen services in accordance with Section
15(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
It was held that the consideration received by the applicant as the value of supply including the
amounts received in the name of bonus will be chargeable to tax at the rate of 2.5% under each of
CGST and he is liable to pay GST at rate of 5% on the entire Lump Sum amount received for payment
of bonus.

-

Snapshot-16-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Amnesty Scheme for Cancellation applies to cases wherein appeal has been rejected by Appellate Authority
-Cancellation of Registration by considering reply which was never submitted
-Amendment in GSTR-1 allowed for the year 17-18

16.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section
29

Notification No.
3/2023-Central Tax
dated 31.03.2023
also applies to
cases wherein
appeal has been
rejected by the
Appellate
Authority

Vijay Kumar Jain v. Central
Goods & Service Tax and
Central Excise [2023] 150
taxmann.com 251
(Jharkhand

Notification No. 3/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 is beneficial in nature. The Explanation
to the notification indicates that the notification shall cover not only those persons who failed
to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration within the time specified in Section 30 of
the Act, but also those whose appeal against the order of cancellation of registration under
Section 107 of the Act stood rejected or they failed to adhere to the time limit specified under
sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act to approach the Appellate Authority against the
order rejecting application for revocation of cancellation of registration under section 107 of
the Act.
The High Court observed that petitioner falls in the category of cases where the appeal
preferred against the cancellation of GST registration has been rejected under Section 107(1)
and (4) of CGST Act as time barred, thus the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to
the petitioner to approach the proper officer with an application for revocation of cancellation
of registration by 30th June 2023.

-

2

Section
29

Cancellation of
Registration by
considering the
reply which was
never submitted

Vijayakumar zhimasandra
Mahadevappa v.
Commissioner of Goods
and Services Tax [2023]
150 taxmann.com 250
(Karnataka

The petitioner contended that the proper officer for cancellation of the GST registration, has
recorded his opinion that the petitioner's registration must be cancelled, and his opinion is
ostensibly on examination of the petitioner's reply and the submissions at the time of hearing.
Irrefutably, the petitioner has neither filed response nor participated in any personal hearing.
This demonstrates that there is complete lack of application of mind and hence arbitrary
exercise of jurisdiction.
The High Court in view of the above observations, held that there is complete lack of
application of mind in cancelling the petitioner's registration and the petitioner has made out
grounds that would justify interference.

-

3

Section
29

Benefit of
Notification No.
3/2023-Central Tax

Natarajan Satheesh Kumar
v. Superintendent, Pollachi
Range II(Center) [2023] 150
taxmann.com 249 (Madras

Order of cancellation was dated 14.09.2022 and the scheme as provided in Notification No.
3/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 was applicable subject to satisfaction of all conditions
set out thereunder, thus petitioner was allowed to prefer to approach authority

-

4

Section
37

Amendment in
GSTR-1 allowed for
the year 2017-18
considering error
being an
inadvertent human
error and absence
of an effective,
enabling
mechanism under
statute for
correction

Abdul Mannan Khan v.
Goods and Services Tax
Council [2023] 150
taxmann.com 203 (Calcutta

The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the decision of the GSTN Authorities
rejecting the request for amendment of the GSTR-1 Form for the financial year 2017-2018
on the ground that such amendment can be done only on the due date of filing of Form
GSTR-1 of March 2019 (30th April, 2019). The Single Bench had dismissed the writ petition
stating that the period of limitation for rectification has since been expired, no direction can
be issued.
The High Court allowed the errors to be rectified relying upon the decisions by the Jharkhand
High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court wherein such errors were
allowed to be rectified primarily on the basis of the error committed by the petitioner being an
inadvertent human error and the petitioner be allowed in a position to rectify the same,
particularly in the absence of an effective, enabling mechanism under statute

M/s. Mahalaxmi Infra Contract
Ltd. v. GSTC 2022-VIL-735-JHR
M/s. Y. B. Construction Pvt.
Ltd., Bhubaneswar v. UOI &
Ors. in W.P. (C) No.12232 of
2021
M/s. Sun Dye Chem v. The
Assistant Commissioner (ST) &
Ors. in W.P. No.29676 of 2019

Snapshot-15-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Cancellation of Registration without following principle of Natural Justice
-Writ Petition not maintainable as matter pending before the Proper Officer
-Posting of Order with incorrect and incomplete address is not a valid delivery

15.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section 

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section
29

Cancellation
of
Registration
without
following
principle of
Natural
Justice

Precitech
Engineers v. State
of U.P.
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 214
(Allahabad)

Writ Petition was allowed considering the fact that the order impugned cancelling the registration was prima facie
without application of mind and the case was thus squarely covered by the judgment in the case of M/s Chandra
Sain (Supra) and the issue of non-fixation of time and date is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the
case of M/s Jaiprakash Thekedar (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed on both the counts.

Mr. Chandra Sain v. U.O.I. ;
[2022 U.P.T.C. (VOL.112) -
1861].
M/s Jaiprakash
Thekedar v. Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes and
another; [(2023 U.P.T.C.
(VOL.113) - 162]

2

Section
69 and
Section
132

Release on
Bail

Suresh Jajra
v. Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 213
(Rajasthan)

It was submitted by the petitioner that he is neither owner of Ayodhya Food Products or nor partner of the firm
and the petitioner and other co-accused had retracted the statement given by under Section 70 of GST Act. It
was further submitted that maximum punishment in this case is five years and conclusion of trial may take long
time and that similarly situated co-accused were enlarged on bail by the Court and by Co-ordinate Bench of the
Court.
The High Court considering the contentions put-forth and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case deemed it just and proper to enlarge the
petitioner on bail

-

3

Section
74

Writ Petition
not
maintainable
as matter
pending
before the
assessing
officer

North End Foods
Marketing (P.) Ltd.
v.
State of U.P
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 212
(Allahabad)

The petitioner was directed that all issues raised were still open to be agitated before the Assessing Officer and
therefore the High Court do not find any good ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed
of with the observation that all the issues raised by the petitioner, especially the issue with regard to the
jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed under Section 74, shall be raised before the Assessing Officer in
reply to the show cause notice, the subject matter of challenge herein

-

4

Section
169

Writ Petition
not
maintainable
as matter
pending
before the
assessing
officer

Global
Construction
v.
Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 204
(Jharkhand)

The High Court observed that firstly certified copy of impugned order was provided to the appellant on 19th
December 2020 which means that by that time the relaxation of limitation period as per the directions of the Apex
Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 03/2020 had commenced due to the COVID lockdown and secondly,
the booking journal or the track consignment report of the speed post does not contain the complete address of
the petitioner.
The High Court observed that it is apparent that notices were issued on incorrect or inadequate address. The
presumption of proof of service of notice is a rebuttable piece of evidence and the track consignment report
having an incomplete address of the petitioner, valid service of notice of the order in original cannot be presumed.
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act as quoted at paragraph-6 of the impugned appellate order also provides
that service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting it be registered post.
Thus, it was held that petitioners have therefore rightly contended that it could not have approached the appellate
authority earlier and thus the grounds of rejection of the memo of appeal was held to be not tenable on facts.

-

Snapshot-14-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

Ex-Parte order without following Natural Justice
-Taxability of supply of Pre-Fabricated Building
-Issuance of Fresh Provisional Attachment after completion of one Year
-Cancellation of Registration from Retrospective date

14.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

73

Ex-Parte
Assessment
order without
following
Principle of
Natural Justice

CICO Patel JV v.
Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 226
(Patna)

Notwithstanding the statutory remedy, the high court is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, an opinion is formed that
the order is bad in law on account of following reasons -
(a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to
represent his case;
(b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the
officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences;
(c) The authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances.

-

2

Para 5 of
Schedule
III and
9406

Whether supply
of Pre-Fabricated
Building is
supply of goods
or supply of
completed
building

Radiant
Enterprises P. Ltd.
v. Joint
Commissioner,
Central Goods and
Services Tax &
Central Excise
(Appeal I) [2023]
150 taxmann.com
225 (Calcutta)

The petitioner contended that since they have purchased a pre-fabricated building, which consisted of factory-made components
or units that are transported and assembled on-site to form complete building, therefore the same shall not be liable to tax by
virtue of Paragraph 5 of Schedule III i.e. Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building.
Considering the following reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority in holding against the petitioners, the High Court declined
to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Authority-
“I find that the appellant has purchased a Prefabricated Building classifiable under GST HSN Code 9406 from M/s. Eveready
Industries Ltd. Now a prefabricated building, informally a prefab, is a building that is manufactured and constructed using
prefabrication. It consists of factory-made components or units that are transported and assembled on-site to form the complete
building. Thus, it is evident from the invoice issued by M/s. Eveready Industries Ltd that they have supplied goods classifiable
under GST HSN Code 9406 to the appellant which is not specified in Section 7(2)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 and probably used
logistic services such as warehousing, flexi-storage by the appellant. Thus, it is evident that M/s. Eveready Industries Ltd have
not provided any Construction services of commercial buildings classifiable under GST service code number 99414. Thus, the
contention of the appellant cannot be sustainable”

-

3

Section
83

Issuance of
Fresh
Provisional
Attachment after
completion of
one Year

Madhav Copper
Ltd.
v. State of Gujarat
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 224
(Gujarat)

The petitioner contended that there was no power with the authorities to extend the provisional attachment beyond one year
with a fresh order.
The High Court observed that the proceedings for adjudication have already commenced with issuance of SCN under Section
74, therefore it would be rather a proper course to be adopted to direct the authorities to complete the adjudication proceedings
time-bound. Once the proceedings are over, the rights of the parties shall stand crystallized leaving the order of provisional
attachment to its own fate

-

4

Section
29

Cancellation of
Registration from
Retrospective
date wherein
SCN did not
provided any
such fact

Aditya Polymers v.
Commissioner of
Delhi Goods and
Services Tax
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 223
(Delhi)

The High Court observed that the SCN issued to the petitioner did not mention that the proper officer proposed to cancel the
registration with retrospective effect. Thus, the petitioner had no opportunity to address any proposed action of cancellation of
registration ab initio.
The High Court disposed of the petition with the direction that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration would take
effect from 11.12.2020 and not from 01.07.2017, since the petitioner submitted that the they would have no objection if the
registration is so cancelled from the date of SCN

-

Snapshot-13-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases-

-No Interest on Input Tax Credit availed but not utilized
-Interest on Refund granted in pursuance of appeal order
-Tax Rate on Renting of Warehouse

13.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 50

No Interest on Input
Tax Credit availed but
not utilized

Grundfos Pumps India
(P.) Ltd. v. Joint
Commissioner of GST
& Central Excise
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 176
(Madras)

The liability to pay interest under Section 50(3) of the CGST on account of the Amendment in
2022 that has retrospective effect from 2017 is only when ITC has been wrongly availed and
utilized.
In the present case, the original error of non-maintenance of ECL is admittedly attributable to
the department. Moreover, the petitioner has not utilized the credit.

Commissioner of Central
Excise v. Bombay Dyeing
Manufacturing Company-
(2007) 215 ELT3

2

Section 56

Interest on Refund
granted in pursuance
of appeal order

AC Impex v. Union of
India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 175
(Delhi

The petitioner had filed refund applications against the export made which were rejected by
the revenue. The refund was initially rejected by subsequently granted in pursuance of the
Court Order.
The issue before the High Court was the date from which statutory interest under Section 56
of CGST Act would get triggered. The petitioner claims that interest should be triggered from
the date when the initial application for refund was filed and the revenue asserts that in terms
of the proviso appended to Section 56 of the CGST Act, interest will get triggered 60 days after
the date when this court passed an order directing consideration of the application.
The High Court held that the proviso to Section 56, as indicated above, is an exception to the
main part of the Section 56 of the CGST Act. The proviso is triggered only when the facts of a
case do not fall in the main part. The proviso envisages a situation where, while processing an
application for refund, the respondents/revenue are required to deal with a lis and the refund
is a consequence of that lis. Where there is no lis with regard to either the quantum or the
value, then in our view, the proviso will have no application. The wordings of the proviso in that
context are revealing. The proviso begins with the following sentence “Provided that where
any claim of refund arises from an order passed by an adjudicating authority or Appellate
Authority or Appellate Tribunal or court which has attained finality...”
Thus, petitioner was held to be right in its contention that interest should trigger in accordance
with the main part of Section 56 of the CGST Act, i.e., from 18.04.2018, and that interest should
run, both on CGST and DGST, up until the date when the amount was remitted to the
petitioner.

- Commissioner of Income
Tax, Mysore, TravancoreCochin and Coorg,
Bangalore and Anr. v. The
Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd
and Anr., 1959 Supp (2) SCR
256
- S. Sundaram Pillai and
Ors. v. V.R. Pattabiraman
and Ors., AIR 1985 SCC 582,
paragraph 27

3

HSN 9972
and HSN
9985

Tax Rate on Renting of
Warehouse

Sudhakar Traders v.
State of Andhra
Pradesh [2023] 150
taxmann.com 174
(Andhra Pradesh

Renting Warehouse to store Agricultural Produce is considered as supply of service, and the
same is not classifiable as "loading, unloading packing, storage or warehousing of agricultural
produce, under SI. No. 54(e) of SAC 9985 of the Notification-11/2017- C.T. (Rate) dated 28th
June 2017. It would be classifiable under SAC 997212 and would attract GST @ 18% vide
entry SI. No. 16 (iii) of Notification No. 11/2017 C.T (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

-M/s SSSVK Cold Storage
Private Limited AAR
Andhra Pradesh
AAR/AP/02(GST)/2018

Snapshot-12-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Determination of tax under Section 130
-Levy of Penalty only on the allegations that excess goods were found
-Service of Notice on Accountant
-Valuation of Goods by Eye Estimation or production capacity or consumption of electricity

12.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Siemens India vs. State of
Maharashtra 2007 (207) ELT 168
(SC

Grant of Pre-arrest
bail

Kapil Dev Singhal
v. State of Assam
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 156
(Gauhati)

The High Court observed that sufficient incriminating materials has already been collected by
the I.O. against the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress. However, it was also
observed that the accused/petitioner appeared before the I.O. on 3-4 occasions and cooperated in the investigation of this case and he also produced the documents which was
asked to produce before the I.O. The entire case is mainly based on documentary evidence.
Thus, considering all these aspects of the case, the high court found it a fit case to extend the
privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner

2

Section 73,
Section 74,
Section 130

-Assessment/
Determination of tax
under Section 130
-Levy of Penalty only
on the allegations the
excess goods were
found at the premises
-Service of Notice on
Accountant
-Valuation of Goods
by Eye Estimation or
production capacity or
consumption of
electricity.

Maa Mahamaya Alloys
(P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 158
(Allahabad

In the course of proceedings under Section 67, quantification was done by eye estimation and
goods were held to be in excess of recorded goods. It was contended by petitioner that while
proceeding to pass an order under Section 130 of the GST Act, no power is vested in the
authority to undertake determination of liability of tax, which can only be done by taking
recourse to Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, as the case may be.
-Relying upon the decision in the matter of M/s Metenere Limited vs Union of India and
another; Writ Tax No.360 of 2020 wherein it was held that demand for tax can be quantified
and raised only in the manner prescribed in Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, as the case
may be, the High Court observed that entire exercise resorted to under Section 130 of GST
Act for assessment/ determination of the tax and penalty is neither stipulated under the Act,
nor can be done in the manner in which it has been done, more so, in view of the fact that
department itself has undertaken the exercise of quantifying the tax due, by taking recourse
under Section 74.
-Scope of proceedings under Section 130(1)(ii) for not accounting for any goods on which
taxpayer is liable to pay tax is only available when an assessee who is liable to pay tax but
does not account for such goods, after the time of supply has occasioned.
-Scope of Proceedings under Section 130(1)(iv) for contravention of any of the provisions of
the Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax is only available when
the department establishes that there were a contravention of the Act and Rules coupled with
the ‘intent to make payment of tax’.
-Service of Notice on the Accountant of the firm is neither contemplated nor provided for under
Section 169(1)(a) and thus, service cannot be held to be a valid service and entire proceedings
are liable to be quashed.
-There is no prescriptions for valuation of goods on the basis of eye estimation under Section
15 of CGST Act, 2017 as has been done by department or the manner in which has been
carried out by appellate authority, thus the impugned order was held to be not sustainable.

M/s Metenere Limited vs
Union of India and another;
Writ Tax No.360 of 2020

Snapshot-11-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases..

-Only summary issued in DRC-01 with no proper SCN
-No Opportunity of being heard given
-Relied upon documents not given
– Interference of High Court at SCN Stage
-SCN being an order by itself and pre-meditates the issue

11.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No.

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 73,
Section 74
and Section
75

-Only summary issued
in DRC-01 with no
proper SCN issued
-No Opportunity of
being heard given
-Relied upon
documents not given

Vishkarma
Industries v.
State of
Jharkhand [2023]
150 taxmann.com
140 (Jharkhand)

-High Court observed that a summary of a show cause notice cannot be a substitute of a
proper show cause notice and would entail violation of principles of natural justice. In the
absence of clear charges upon which the person so alleged is required to answer, proper
opportunity to defend itself stands denied. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioners contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) and (5). Relied upon documents, which
were basis for passing summary order were not supplied to petitioner.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned summary of show cause and impugned
summary of order contained were quashed.

-Nkas Services Private Limited
Vrs. State of Jharkhand -2021
SCC Online Jhar 1266.
- M/s Godavari Commodities
Ltd. Vrs. State of Jharkhand.
[W.P.(T) No. 3908 of 2020
-Natwar Singh Vrs. Director of
Enforcement. 2010(13) SCC 255.

2

Section 18

Extension of time for
filing of ITC-01 on
changeover from
composition scheme
to normal

Alpha Polymers
v. Commissioner,
Central
Commissionerate
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 139
(Madras

Petitioner has made a representation for extension of time for filing of ITC-01 before the first
respondent and the first respondent instead of passing orders on the said representation,
kept the matter pending for nearly a year and thereafter, the second respondent passed the
order impugned in this writ petition stating that the petitioner's request was rejected by the
first respondent and the said order has been issued with the approval of the first respondent.
The High Court set aside the order and remitted to the first respondent, who shall pass
appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner.

-

3

Section 73
and Section
74

Interference of High
Court at Show Cause
Notice Stage
When Show cause
notice is an order by
itself and it premeditates the issu

Joyous Blocks &
Panels (P.) Ltd.
v. Assistant
Commissioner,
Commercial
Taxes [2023] 150
taxmann.com 138
(Calcutta)

-If a show cause notice suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction, Courts are entitled to
interfere with the same.
-In the present matter, once inspection of the business premises was completed, a query
was raised by the officer The appellants had submitted an elaborate reply for such a query
and the authority while issuing the show cause notice has dealt with the reply under the
heading “Rebuttal on the factual points”.
The High Court observed that prima facie SCN appears to be an order and the manner of
issuing show cause notice has not been rightly understood by the authority. Partly the
appellants have to be blamed because the appellants for the query raised by the authority
had misconstrued the scope of the query and proceeded to make elaborate factual
submissions. If appellants had restricted their reply only to the extent query raised, this
problem could have been averted. Thus, not only the authority committed a mistake in
proceeding to reject all the contentions and then issued the show cause notice, equally the
appellants also committed a mistake in mentioning facts which were not required to be done
pursuant the query raised by the authority.
For the above reasons the appeal was allowed and the order passed was set aside with a
direction to isssue a fresh show cause notice with an open mind without pre-deciding any
issue

Siemens India vs. State of
Maharashtra 2007 (207) ELT 168
(SC)

Snapshot-9-One Pager Snapshot of Round up of Latest GST Cases..

-Taxability of clubs with insertion of 7(1)(aa)
-Eligibility of Main contractor to claim ITC
-Classification of Tax Rate on Mattresses
-Treatment of subsidized food provided to Employees and availability of ITC

9.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 7
and Section
70

Taxability of club with
the insertion of Section
7(1)(aa) and question of
interference by High
Court at the stage of
Summon

Bankipore Club Ltd. v.
Union of India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 76 (Patna)

It was contended by the petitioner that club operates on the principles of agency and
having its relationship with the individual members based on the principle of mutuality,
the CGST Act was not applicable to it till the CGST Act was amended with the
insertion of Clause (aa) to Section 7 of the CGST Act by Finance Act, 2021 with effect
from 01.01.2022. Therefore, petitioner ought not to have been directed to produce
any document for the transactions prior to 01.01.2022.
In view of the wide scope of Section 70 of the CGST Act regarding power to summon
persons to give evidence and produce documents, the High Court was not inclined to
interfere with the impugned summons

-

2

Section
17(5)(c) and
(d)

Eligibility of Main
contractor to claim
Input Tax credit of the
Tax charged by Subcontracto

SR Constructions v.
Union of India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 75
(TRIPURA)

The petitioner is a construction company. They had a works contract agreement with
the M/s Hotel Polo Pvt. Ltd. and to construct a hotel. In the process of construction
they procured materials and also took the services of Sub-contractors. However,
demand on the ground that such ITC availed on works contract service for supply of
construction of an immoveable property was in violation of Section 17(5) of CGST Act
was created against the petitioners under Section 74.
It was held by the High Court that the petitioner has been providing work contract
services to the owner of the hotel and not for it’s own and thus they are entitled to
take Input Tax Credit on the Goods and Services being utilized for providing the
taxable work contract services. The demand raised and penalty imposed under
Section 74(1) of the CGST Act,2017 was held to be ultra vires

-

3

HSN 9404

Classification of Tax
Rate on Mattresses

Hosur Coir Foams (P.)
Ltd [2023] 150
taxmann.com 74 (AAR -
TAMILNADU)

Mattresses classifiable under HSN 940429 are liable to Tax @ 18% vide serial
number 438 under Schedule III of Notification No.01/2017 I.T (Rate) dated
28.06.2017, as amended.

-

4

Section 7
and Section
16

Section 7
and Section
16

Section 7
and Section
16

Section 7
and Section
16

M/s Tata Motors Ltd,
AhmedabadGUJ/GAAAR/Appeal/2022/23
dated 22.12.2022

Snapshot-8-One Pager Snapshot of Round up of Latest GST Cases..

-Constitutional Validity of Anti Profiteering Provisions
-Attachment of Bank Account U/Sec 83
– Condition directing appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores for grant of bail was not sustainable

8.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 171

Constitutional Validity
of Anti Profiteering
Provisions Challenged

Siddha Real Estate
Development (P.) Ltd. v.
National Anti-Profiteering
Authority [2023] 150
taxmann.com 48 (Calcutta)

-The High Court was of the view that there could not be any urgency for granting any
interim order since the petitioner was sitting over the aforesaid impugned adjudication
order for the last six months.
-It is a well established principle of law that every piece of legislation should be treated
as a valid piece of legislation till the same is declared unconstitutional by any court of law
and every action taken under such law should be deemed to be valid by an authority so
long it is not declared unconstitutional. Since the constitutional validity of Section 171 of
CGST Act has been challenged, writ petition being WPA 7189 of 2023 was entertained
however, the court was not inclined to grant any interim order of stay of the aforesaid
impugned adjudication order dated 30th September, 2022 in view of the facts and
circumstances of this case as appears from record and by considering the submission of
the parties

-

2

Section 83

Attachment of Bank
Account of other
persons not being
taxable person or
covered under Section
122(1A) of CGST Act,
2017

Sakshi Bahl v. Principal
Additional Director
General [2023] 150
taxmann.com 47 (Delhi)

It is not open for the respondent to attach the bank accounts of other persons on a mere
assumption that the funds therein are owned by any taxable person and the fact is that
the petitioners are not taxable persons. The power under Section 83 of the Act, to
provisionally attach assets or bank accounts is limited to attaching the bank accounts and
assets of taxable persons and persons specified under Section 122(1A) of the Act. In
view of the above, the impugned order was not sustained.

-

3

Section 69
and Section
132

Condition directing the
appellant to deposit a
sum of Rs.2 crores for
grant of bail was not
liable to be sustained

Anatbhai Ashokbhai
Shah v. State of Gujarat
[2023] 150 taxmann.com
46 (SC

The Apex Court observed that since the facts are almost identical to the case referred,
there was no reason to deviate from the view taken in the said case vide judgment and
order dated 20.01.2023. Following the reasons given in the said judgment and order, it
was held that the condition directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores was
not liable to be sustained and was hereby set aside. The rest of the conditions in the
impugned order were sustained. The appeal accordingly, was allowed to that extent

Subhash
Chouhan v. UOI [2023]
147 taxmann.com 211
(SC