Snapshot-6-One Pager Snapshot of Round up of Latest GST Cases..

S.No.

Section

Case Subject

Cases

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 95

Can a recipient
file an
application
before AAR

Anmol Industries
Ltd. v. West Bengal
Authority for
Advance Ruling,
Goods and Services
Tax [2023] 150
taxmann.com 3
(Calcutta

AAR in the order impugned in the writ petition concluded that appellants being recipients of service is not
entitled to maintain an application before the AAR .
The High Court held that Section 95(c) of the CGST Act defines “applicant” to mean any person registered
or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act and in the said case, the appellants being registered
dealers under the provisions of the Act would fall within the definition of “applicant” as defined under Section
95( c) of the Act.

M/s. Gayatri Projects
Limited & anr. Vs. The
Assistant
Commissioner of
State Tax, Durgapur
Charge & Ors. in
M.A.T. No.2027 of 2022

2

Section 54

Whether order
of Apex Court
for Suo Motu
Extension
applies for
Refund
Application

44 EMB Studio (P.)
Ltd. v. Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 4
(Bombay)

It was contended by the petitioner that though it is correct that for part of the claim which has been rejected
refund was sought after a period of two years, however, the period was extended by the orders passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation.
The High Court held that implications of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not considered
while calculating the limitation period. The appropriate course of action therefore as decided by the High
Court was to set aside the impugned order, restore the appeal filed by the Petitioner in respect of the refund
which has not been granted and direct the Appellate Authority to examine the aspect of limitation on merits
afresh in the light of the decision/order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu Writ Petition.

Saiher Supply Chain
Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
v/s. The Union of India
(O.S. WP(L) 1275/21)
dated 10 January 2023

3

Section 29

Cancellation of
Registration by
a non-speaking
order

Manoj Kumar Sah v.
State of Bihar [2023]
150 taxmann.com 5
(Patna

The High Court observed that with the passing of the said order, petitioner was liable to both civil and penal
consequences. To say the least, the authority ought to have at least referred to the contents of the show
cause and the response thereto, which was not done. Not only the order is non-speaking, but cryptic in nature
and the reason of cancellation not decipherable therefrom. Principles of natural justice stand violated and the
order needs to be quashed as it entails penal and pecuniary consequences. Therefore, the order passed
was quashed with the petitioner’s registration restored.

-

4

Section 7
and
Section 16

Treatment of
subsidized
food provided
by the
Taxpayer to its
Employees and
availability of ITC

Cadila
Pharmaceuticals Ltd
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 32
(AAR - GUJARAT)

- The subsidized deduction made by the applicant from the employees who are availing food in the
factory/corporate office would not be considered as a 'supply' under the provisions of section 7 of the CGST
Act, 2017 and the GGST Act,2017.
- lTC will be available to the applicant on GST charged by the service provider in respect of canteen facility
provided to its direct employees working in their factory and the corporate office, in view of the provisions of
Section 17(5b) as amended effective from 1.2.2019 and clarification issued by CBIC vide Circular No. 172-
dated 6.7.2022 read with provisions of section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 and read with provisions of
Gujarat Factory Rules, 1963 and Gujarat Shops and Establishment (Regulation of Employment and
Condition of Service) Act, 2019. ITC on the above is restricted to the extent of the cost borne by the applicant
for providing canteen services to its direct employees, but disallowing proportionate credit to the extent
embedded in the cost of goods recovered from such employees