S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

section
100

Extension of the
limitation period for
filing Appeal before
AAAR beyond the
period allowed for
condonation of
delay in the Statute

Indian Institute of
Corporate Affairs
v. Delhi Appellate
Authority for
Advance Ruling
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 505
(Delhi)

The High Court held that since the appeal was filed before the AAAR on 14.02.2020, which was beyond the period of sixty days from the
date on which the petitioner received the order dated 28.06.2019 or from the date it became aware of the constitution of the Appellate
Authority, the delay was in excess of the period that could be condoned by the appellant. In view of the above, High Court held that they
were unable to find fault with the decision of the Appellate Authority in declining to entertain the petitioner's appeal under Section 100 of
the Act.
Case Referred-State of Goa v. Western Builders: (2006) 6 SCC 239 and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission and Ors.: 2010 (5) SCC 23

2

Section 9

Stay Petition on
GST on Mining
Royalty dismissed

Rajasthan Granite
Mining
Association
v. Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 501
(Rajasthan)

The High Court observed that the counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to dispute the fact that the issue regarding demand of GST
on royalty paid to the respondent - Mining Department towards mining lease has already been decided by the Court in Sudershan Lal
Gupta's and Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog's case. In view of the above, high court dismissed the writ petition in terms of the orders
passed by the Court in Sudershan Lal Gupta's case and Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog's case). The stay petition was also dismissed.
Case Referred- Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog v. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5678/2022) and Sudershan
Lal Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8109/2022

3

Section
29 and
Section
30

Principle of Natural
Justice not followed
before cancellation
of registration

S.P. Metals v.
Assistant
Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 498
(Karnataka)

The petitioner was aggrieved by the first respondent's order dated 30.11.2022. It was contended by the petitioner that when he was still in
custody, department cancelled the GST registration on 30.11.2022 recording that on examination of the petitioner's case against
cancellation they were of the opinion that it should be cancelled. If the petitioner was in custody from 16.11.2022 until 08.12.2022 when he
was admitted to bail and released, the petitioner could not have been served with Show Cause Notice dated 17.11.2022 and he could not
have issued any response, but the GST registration was cancelled based on the said Show Cause Notice holding that petitioner's response
was considered.
The High Court observed that the department has recorded what appears to be a stereotype opinion because in the circumstances of the
case it cannot even be argued that the petitioner could have issued response. Therefore, the Court interfered with the impugned order on
the ground of arbitrariness and allowed petitioner to furnish the returns for the period for which the returns were not filed as a condition for
revocation of the cancellation as against a cancellation by this order without any condition.

4

Section
54

Rule 89(4) is not
applicable in case of
refund on account of
export of services
with payment of tax

OHMI Industries
Asia (P.) Ltd. v.
Assistant
Commissioner,
Central Goods and
Services Tax
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 497
(Delhi

The proper officer had rejected petitioner's claim of refund on account of export of services without payment of tax by referring to Subclause (D) of Rule 89(4) of the Rules on the ground that the turnover reflected for the month of October, 2018 ought to be considered as
the turnover for the month of November, 2018 when the remittances were received. The petitioner appealed against the decision of proper
officer rejecting the refund contending Rule 89(4) of the Rules does not apply. The petitioner submitted that Rule 89(4) of the Rules applied
only for refund in respect to exports made without payment of integrated tax. The petitioner pointed out that it was not seeking refund of
accumulated ITC but integrated tax as paid by him and that there was no dispute that the petitioner had discharged his liability of payment
of integrated tax.
The High Court held that the opening sentence of Rule 89(4) of the Rules makes it amply clear that it applies only in cases of zero rated
supply of goods or services, without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking and thus Rule 89(4) of the Rules is inapplicable to
cases of refund of integrated tax paid on zero rated supply

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
29 and
Section
30

Petitioner directed to
file application for
revocation of
Cancellation of
Registration as per
notification no.
3/2023-CTdt 31-3-23

Anandkumar Ramdeo
Singh v.
Commissioner
(Appeals-I) GST and
Central Tax [2023] 151
taxmann.com 13
(Karnataka)

The High Court observed that the notification dated 31.03.2023 has been issued providing for revocation of cancellation of the
registration. Since the cancellation was under the provisions of Section 29(2) of the CGST Act and such cancellation was before
31.12.2022, and an application for revocation was not filed, the High Court stated that application be submitted that in terms of this
notification.

2

Section
74 and
Section
75

A vague notice is
violation of provision
in Section 75 since
the Statute itself
prescribes for
affording reasonable
opportunity and any
deficiency in that
regard vitiates the
result.

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 12
(Madhya Pradesh)
Balaji Electricals
v. Appellate Authority
& Joint Commissioner
State Tax.

The High Court observed that even though the petitioner had not specifically raised the said ground before the appellate authority
but the fact remained that mandatory provisions of Section 74 of GST Act make it incumbent upon the Revenue to ensure the show
cause notice to be speaking enough to enable the assessee to respond to the same. However, SCN revealed that it neither contained
the material and information nor the statement containing details of ITC transaction under question. It was further observed that
Section 75 of GST Act is a complete Code which prescribes for various stages for determination of wrongful utilization of ITC while
following the concept of reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since the Statute itself prescribes for affording
reasonable opportunity, it is incumbent upon the Revenue to afford the same and any deficiency in that regard vitiates the result.
The High Court held that it had no manner of doubt that the very initiation of the proceedings by way of show cause notice was
vitiated for the same being vague.
Case Referred- Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises v. The State of Jharkhand & ors) including WP(T) No.745/2021 14thth, September
2022,

3

Section 9

to bear GST Burden
in case of Pre and
Post GST Contracts
wherein impact of
GST was not
considered while
preparing BOQ

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 12
(Madhya Pradesh)
Balaji Electricals
v. Appellate Authority
& Joint Commissioner
State Tax.

The matter in the instant petition was to give by way of direction upon the respondent authority concerned to bear the additional tax
liability for execution of subsisting Government contracts either awarded in the pre-GST regime or in the post GST regime without
updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for inviting the bids
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representations in the aforesaid
regard before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On
receipt of such representations the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department was directed to take a final decision within four
months from the date of receipt of such representation after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned.

4

Section
112

Status of Recovery of
demand on account
of non-constitution of
Tribunal.

Flipkart India (P.) Ltd.
v. Additional
Commissioner of
State Tax (Appeal)
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 10
(Patna)

The High Court held that subject to verification of the fact of deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in
dispute, or deposit of the same, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section
107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the
B.G.S.T. Act, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The
recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.
Case Referred- AJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Others in C.W.J.C. No. 15465 of 2022

5

Section
69 and
Section
132

Rejection of
Anticipatory Bail

[2023] 151
taxmann.com 9 (SC)
Sheetal Mittal v. State
of Rajasthan

The Supreme Court held that looking to the role attributed to the petitioner(s) and the observations made by the High Court that the
GST number, name of the firm were fabricated and other details were found to be non-existent, there was no case for anticipatory
bail. The Special Leave Petitions were thus dismissed

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
29

Decision of
Appellate Authority
on issues neither
part of Show Cause
Notice and nor part
of Order

Ajay Building
Material v. State
of U.P.
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 6
(Allahabad)

The High Court held that the order dated 01.12.2020 fell short of the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the appellate
order dated 30.12.2021 clearly exceeds the power conferred upon the appellate authority as it decides the appeal on the issues which were
neither a part of the show-cause notice nor was a consideration when the order dated 01.12.2020 was passed.
Cases Referred- M/s Chandra Sain, v. U.O.I & Ors. (Writ Tax No.147 of 2022) decided on 22.09.2022 as well as M/S Precitech
Engineeers v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Tax No.1583 of 2022) decided on 14.03.2023

2

9966

Diesel
Reimbursement to
form part of Vehicle
Hire Charges

Uttarakhand
Public Financial
Strengthening
Project [2023]
151
taxmann.com 5
(AARUTTARAKHAND)

The Authority held that without fuel the motor vehicle does not operate (run) and without running i.e. moving from one place to another, the
act of motor vehicle hire services does not happen. The motor vehicle hire services have the integral component of running/ operating the
vehicle to one place to another for transportation. Therefore, to claim to provide the said services, actual transportation has to take place
and without fuel this cannot happen. The contract entered between the applicant and the provider of services is for motor vehicle hire
services, wherein the liability to arrange fuel and the maintenance of the vehicle, so deployed lies with the service provider and is a
comprehensive contract with the consideration which varies depending upon the kilometer travelled. Therefore, reimbursement of expenses
for providing said services, under any head is nothing but the additional consideration for the provision of said services and attracts GST on
the total value.
Cases Referred- M/s. Goodwill Auto’s, Hubbali; Dharwad (Karnataka AAR), M/s Vinayak Air Products Pvt. Ltd (Uttarakhand AAR),
M/s Gurjinder Singh Sandhu (Uttarakhan AAR), M/s Tara Genset Engineers (Uttarakhand AAR)

3

Section
69 and
Section
132

Bail granted as
petitioner had faced
incarceration for
more than 1½ years,
complaint still at
summon stage,
other accused
extended benefit of
bail

Kawaljot Singh
v.
Superintendent
Preventive,
CGST
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 4
(Punjab &
Haryana)

The High Court observed that the quantum of amount which the petitioner was involved was yet to be decided at the time of trial. The
petitioner had already faced incarceration for more than 1½ years. The complaint is still at the summoning stage. The other two accused
had already been extended the benefit of default bail and one more co-accused was granted regular bail by the Court who is stated to be
at parity with the present petitioner.
Thus, the High Court considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also considering the total custody of the petitioner which was
more than 1½ years, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner

4

Section
65,
Section
73/74
and
Section
161

Rectification of
Audit Report

Singh Caterers
and Vendors v.
Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 3
(Patna)

The petitioner was aggrieved with the audit report issued under section 65(6) and the non-consideration of the rectification application, the
petitioner made under Section 161 of the Act.
The High Court observed that re-examination of the Audit Report by application under section 161 is not a permissible exercise. The
Assessing Officer had rightly found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, which could be rectified under section 161
and that in any event, section 73 proceedings had been initiated based on the final audit report. The Assessing Officer has also noted that
submission if any made by the tax payer would be taken on record. The Proper Officer has looked at the audit report and has recorded his
satisfaction in the show-cause notice on items raised in the audit report and which enables assessee to raise objections against the same.
Therefore, the High Court was of the opinion that there was no reason why writ petition should be entertained when the rectification
application, on which basis the proceedings under section 73 is sought to be kept in abeyance. If the Assessing Officer has not completed
the proceedings, the petitioner would be entitled to file his objections and seek for consideration of the same before the Assessing Officer

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.

-

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

-