Skip to content

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



Case Subject



Cases Reffered



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

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

-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




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

Gajrar Singh Ranawat v.
Union of India [2023] 150 260

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




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] 150 259 (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.