Skip to content

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

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