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