Supply of goods by
shops located at
domestic Airport or
Domestic Security Hold
Area, is taxable
A1Cuisines (P.) Ltd.
V. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that supply of goods by shops located at a domestic Airport or Domestic Security Hold Area, which are
before even the immigration clearance by a passenger are taxable since the transaction cannot be said to have taken place in any
area beyond the customs frontiers of India or outside India.
The SLP before the Supreme Court against the said judgement was dismissed.
SCN set aside as the
same was devoid of
reasons and thus
(P.) Ltd. v. Goods &
Service Tax Officer
The High Court observed that SCN was deficient and it does not sufficiently disclosed reasons why petitioner's GST Registration was
suspended or was proposed to be cancelled. It is well settled that a SCN must clearly set out the reasons for proposing an adverse
action for noticee to respond. The High Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that he was at a loss as to how to respond to
the impugned show cause notice as it did not disclose any intelligible reason for proposing cancellation of the petitioner's registration.
The High Court thus set aside the show cause notice and petitioner's GST Registration was restored.
Refund cannot be
because the revenue
has decided to file an
appeal against the order
G. S. Industries v.
Central Goods and
Services Tax 
The question was whether benefit of Order-in-appeal dated 03.01.2022 can be denied to the petitioner and refund amount be withheld
solely on the ground that the respondent had decided to file an appeal against the said order.
The High Court observed that respondent had not filed any appeal, and there was no order of any Court staying the order. Indisputably,
the order could not be ignored solely because according to the revenue, the said order is erroneous and is required to be set
aside. The High Court thus allowed the petition and directed to forthwith process refund including interest.
Cases Referred- Mr. Brij Mohan Mangla v. Union of India & Ors.: W.P.(C) 14234/2022 dated 23.02.2023
Petitioner failed to file
demand stayed subject
to deposit of tax as
Tribunal not constituted
Laxman Barik v.
of State Tax (Appeal)
There was delay in preferring appeal before appellate authority. The revenue contended that, Court may not be able to condone the
delay beyond four months, particularly when appellate authority has not been vested with discretion to condone the delay beyond one
month after lapse of three months from the date of communication of order.
The High Court held that since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching 2nd appellate
tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing entire tax demand, the rest of
the demand was stayed during the pendency of the writ petition
Services not covered by
Ohmi Industries Asia
(P.) Ltd v. Assistant
Central Goods and
Services Tax 
The petitioner provided services to an affiliated entity, OHMI Industries Ltd., Japan and entered into two separate agreements with
OHMI Japan, one for rendering Business Support Services and the other for providing Market Research Services. The petitioner filed
an application seeking refund of integrated tax on zero rated supply. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund application stating
that petitioner was providing support to the customers of OHMI, Japan directly meant that the petitioner was rendering intermediary
services. The High Court stated that the appellate authority failed to notice that the petitioner's appeal was confined only for refund of
integrated tax paid on invoices raised in respect of Market Research Services. The order passed by the adjudicating authority was
premised on the basis that petitioner was rendering services directly to the customers of OHMI, Japan. This was in the context of the
Business Support Services rendered by the petitioner to OHMI, Japan. In the present case, there was no dispute that petitioner had
rendered Market Research Services on its own; there was no allegation that it had arranged supply of services from a third party.
The High Court also referred to Circular dated 20.09.2021 (Circular No.159/15/2021-GST) and held that insofar as providing Market
Research Services is concerned, the petitioner cannot be held to be an intermediary. In view of the above, the petitions were allowed
and the impugned order was set aside. Case Referred- M/s Ernst And Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST
Appeals-II, Delhi and Anr.; W.P.(C) No.8600/2022 decided on 23.03.2023