Skip to content

Snapshot-21-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Decision of Appellate Authority on issues neither part of SCN and nor part of Order
-Diesel Reimbursement to form part of Vehicle Hire Charges
-Grant of Bail
-Rectification of Audit Report



Case Subject





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 6

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



Reimbursement to
form part of Vehicle
Hire Charges

Public Financial
Project [2023]
151 5

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)


69 and

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

Kawaljot Singh
[2023] 151 4
(Punjab &

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



Rectification of
Audit Report

Singh Caterers
and Vendors v.
Union of India
[2023] 151 3

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