S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
129 and
Section
130

Inter-play between
Section 129 and 130 in
Question

Aahana Sales (P.)
Ltd. v. Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 230
(Gujarat)

Petitioner contended that when goods were in transit, the authorities intercepted the goods and confiscated them. In other words,
authorities sought to derive their powers for taking possession of the goods of the petitioner which were in transit under Section 129
of the Act. It was submitted that the said Section begins with non obstante clause and it is a provision independent of Section 130. In
that context, it was submitted that exercise of powers under Section 129 and thereafter switching over to Section 130 and passing
order thereunder without availing the petitioner the benefits of release of the goods under Section 129, could be said to be without
jurisdiction. Special Civil Application No.8353 of 2022 and other matters have been entertained by this court involving the same point
and interim relief of release of the goods and conveyance has also been granted on condition.
The High court directed that upon compliance of the required conditions stated in the order, goods and vehicle both shall be released
by the authorities and the petition be listed with Special Civil Application No.8353 of 2022

2

Section
112

Status of Recovery of
demand on account of
non-constitution of
Tribunal.

SAJ Food Products
(P.) Ltd. v. State of
Bihar [2023] 151
taxmann.com 229
(Patna)

The High Court held that subject to verification of the fact of deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in
dispute, or deposit of the same, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section
107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the
B.G.S.T. Act, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The
recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.
Case Referred- Angel Engicon Private Limited v. the State of Bihar & Anr. passed in C.W.J.C No. 1920 of 2023

3

Section
67

GST officers have no
power to seize any cash
in exercise of its powers
under Section 67(2) of
the GST Act

Arvind Goyal CA v.
Union of India [2023]
151 taxmann.com
228 (Delhi)

The petitioner had contended that GST officers had no power to seize any cash in exercise of its powers under Section 67(2) of the
GST Act. The department contended that that the officers had merely "resumed" cash as is noted in the panchnama and therefore,
the same cannot be considered as seizure. The High Court observed that Prima facie, a plain reading of Section 67(2) of the GST
Act indicates that the seizure is limited to goods liable for confiscation or any documents, books or things, which may be "useful for
or relevant to any proceedings under this Act". Clearly, cash does not fall within the definition of goods. And, prima facie, it is difficult
to accept that cash could be termed as a 'thing' useful or relevant for proceedings under the GST Act. The second proviso to Section
67(2) of the GST Act also provides that the books or things so seized would be retained by the officer only so long as may be
necessary "for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under the Act." However, Court thereafter noted that there was
no occasion for the Court to examine the aforesaid question as it was the respondents' stand that the cash was not seized.
It was contended by the respondent that seizure memo was not prepared as the officers, who had conducted the search operation,
had, in fact, not seized any cash. It was observed by the High Court that there was no provision in the GST Act that could support an
action of forcibly taking over possession of currency from the premises of any person, without effecting the same. The powers of
search and seizure are draconian powers and must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute and only if the necessary conditions
are satisfied. Thus, it was held that the action of taking away currency was illegal and without any authority of law respondents were
directed to forthwith return the balance amount along with the interest accrued thereon to the petitioners and the bank guarantee
furnished by petitioner for release of currency was directed to be released forthwith

4

Section
107

Opportunity of being
heard to be given
considering the reason
for seeking adjournment
was reasonable

Swaraj Equipment
(P.) Ltd. v.
Commissioner
(Appeals II) [2023]
151 taxmann.com
227 (Madras)

The only grievance put forth was that the petitioner was not heard prior to passing of the impugned order. The officer records that
though personal hearing was fixed on 06.01.2023 and re-fixed on 08.02.2023, on both occasions, only adjournment was sought on
the ground that additional information was to be collected. However, the assessee pointed out that marriage reception of his daughter
was on 04.02.2023, on account of which, he was unable to collect the requisite particulars. The High Court was of the considered
view that the aforesaid reason constitutes sufficient cause and that the officer ought to have taken note of the same and re-schedule
the date of hearing to accommodate the request as aforesaid and thus the impugned order was set aside, appeal stood restored

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
13(8)(b)
of IGST
Act, 2017

provisions relating
to Place of Supply
of services by an
intermediary

Dharmendra M. Jani
v. UOI [2023] 151
taxmann.com 91
(Bombay

The High Court following its earlier judgement held that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid
and constitutional, provided that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) are confined in their operation to the provisions of
IGST Act only and the same cannot be made applicable for levy of tax on services under the CGST and MGST Acts.
Case Referred- Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India [2023] 149 taxmann.com 317/ 97 GST 630 / 2023 (72) G.S.T.L 448 (Bom.)

2

Section
2(30) and
Section
15

Whether supply
under two
contracts for
which separate
invoices were
issued by
applicant to his
recipient, under a
single contract
agreement are
independent from
each other or part
of composite
supply

PES Engineers (P.)
Ltd. [2023] 151
taxmann.com 87
(AAR- TELANGANA)

The petitioner entered into two separate agreements and the title to both the agreements was as follows-
“Whereas the Employer desires to engage the Contractor to design, manufacture, test, deliver, install, complete and commission and
conduct guarantee tests of certain Facilities, viz., Fuel Gas www.taxmann.com 13 Desulphurisation (FGD) System Package for Singareni
TPS, Stage-1 (2 X 600 MW) under Bidding Document No.CW-CM-11017-C-O-M-003 (“the Facilities”) and the Contractor have agreed to
such engagement upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter appearing.”
The scope of First Contract was sale of goods ex-manufacture/exworks and according to the applicant, it was a contract for pure sale of
goods. The scope of work under the Second Contract was “Inland Transportation of the main equipment, inland transit insurance, unloading
at site, storage, erection, civil works, Safety aspects / Compliance to Safety Rules and other services insurance covers other than inland
transit insurance, testing, commission and conducting guarantee tests”. And according to the applicant, the supply under Second Contract
was Works Contract Service. Question before the authority was whether these are two supplies or are they part of composite supply.
The authority held that the scope of works/supply undertaken under individual contracts are entirely independent and specific to that contract
and are not associated with other contract. The supply undertaken under the first contact terminated with making goods available ex-works
and loading them on to the mode of transport. The moment the applicant raised tax invoice for the supply of goods and endorsed the
despatch documents, the title of the goods passed on to M/s SCCL. The supply under the second contact commenced with service of
transportation of the said goods supplied under first contract. Since the transfer of property in the goods supplied under first contract was
not taking place during the execution of the Works Contract under second contract, the value thereof cannot be included in the Works
Contract. Thus, supply/ service under second contract commenced only on completion of all the milestone activities of first contract. Thus,
it was held that it was evident that each Contract was independent and every milestone supply made from the individual contract was, an
independent transaction. It was further held that when both the contracts are viewed as separate contracts, notwithstanding that both were
mentioned in single Conditions of Contract, tax liability on supply of goods, as per First Contract, will arise as specified in Section 12(2)(a)
of CGST Act, 2017 i.e. at the time, which is the date of issue of invoice by the taxpayer or the last date on which he is required, under
section 31, to issue the invoice.
Cases Referred- Commissioner Vs. Essar Projects (India) Ltd., 2014(36) STRJ 153(SC), State of Karnataka Vs. Pro. Lab, 2015 (321)
EIT 366(SC), State of Madras Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Company (Madras) Ltd., [1958] 9 STC353(SC); C.C.E. & S.T., AHMEDABADIII Versus KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD., 2021 (48) G.S.T.L. 354 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

3

Section
107

Availability of
Alternative
remedy

Thiruchy Royal
Steels v. Deputy
State Tax Officer
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 86
(Madras)

The High Court held that since writ petition involved disputed questions of facts, which could not be gone into in the Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the alternate remedy is available under Section 107 of the GST Act, therefore Writ
Petition stands disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
54

Interest payable
on refund in
case of
inordinate delay

Sesame Workshop
Initiatives (India) (P.)
Ltd. v. Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 52
(Delhi)

By an order dated 04.10.2021, a refund of Rs. 1,12,98,201/-was sanctioned. The refund of SGST of Rs. 44,60,713/- was processed and
disbursed on 09.03.2022. However, refund of CGST and IGST was not processed despite refund order dated 04.10.2021, sanctioning the
same. A letter informing the petitioner of disbursal of the said amount was issued on 23.04.2023 and the said amount was credited into the
petitioner's bank account on 27.04.2023. The issue involved in the present case is now confined to the interest payable on the said amount.
The High Court held that undisputedly, if a person is denied of the payment due to him, he is required to be compensated. In Sandvik Asia
Limited v. Commissioner of Income tax I, Pune: (2006) 2 SCC 508 the Supreme Court had endorsed the principle that interest would be
payable even in cases where there was no statutory provision for payment of interest. Therefore, it was held that petitioner was entitled to
interest from 01.11.2021 (considering an allowance of twenty-six days for the respondents to comply with the refund sanction order dated
04.10.2021) till the date of payment, that is, 27.04.2023 at 6% per annum.
Cases Referred- Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.: (2014) 6 SCC 335; Sandvik Asia Limited v. Commissioner of Income tax I,
Pune: (2006) 2 SCC 508

2

Section
69 and
Section
132

Grant of Bail

Amrinder Singh v.
State of Punjab
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 51
(Punjab & Haryana

The High Court observed that broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts), in economic offences
involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple
test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail
even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant.
Therefore, in view of the above, bail was granted in view of the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2021 and was is in custody
ever since in a case where the maximum sentence that could be awarded was 05 years, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not
required, more so when his co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2022.

3

Section
54

Documents
signed in the
manner
prescribed in
Rule 26 but not
physically
signed as
required in the
circular may be
an irregularity
but not an
illegality

Medicamen Biotech
Ltd.
v.
Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 408
(Rajasthan)

The appellate authority declared the sanction for refund as illegal as declarations were not signed in physical mode before it could be
scanned and uploaded through electronic mode. For this purpose, Appellate Authority relied upon Circular dated 18.11.2019.
The High Court observed that a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Rule 26 and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules of 2017 does not
mandate that even after having authenticated a document in the manner prescribed under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules of 2017, insofar as
declarations (as sought in the present case) are concerned, they are also required to be signed in physical mode before being scanned
and uploaded through electronic submission along with the application for refund. However, by administrative instructions, i.e. Circular
dated 18.11.2019, such requirement was added. Though non-submission of refund application along with the declarations as required
under the law would certainly be illegal and that may, in appropriate case, entail rejection of the application, however, if declarations, as in
the present case, are digitally authenticated in the manner prescribed under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules of 2017, non-submission of
physically signed and scanned declarations may only be an irregularity, but not an illegality. Therefore, High Court held that impugned order
passed by the Appellate Authority upsetting the order of refund passed by the Adjudicating Authority was not sustainable in law

4

Section
107

Availability of
alternative
remedy

Kramski Stamping
and Molding Indis
(P.) Ltd. v. State Tax
Officer (Int.) [2023]
151 taxmann.com 85
(Madras)

In the instant case, detention was goods was made for failure to carry E-Invoice during the movement of the goods. The High court held
that they cannot entertain this writ petition as principles of natural justice have not been violated since the impugned order was only passed
after giving the petitioner time to submit the reply and after consideration of reply filed. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to
file statutory appeal, if aggrieved by the impugned order before the statutory Appellate Authority as per the provisions of Section 107 of
G.S.T. Act, 2017 and a direction was issued to the statutory Appellate Authority as and when an appeal was filed by the petitioner to
consider the petitioner's application seeking for provisional release under Section 129(1) of the G.S.T Act, 2017

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
129 and
Section
107

Once order is
stayed, officer
can release the
goods subject to
such other
safeguards that
may be imposed
by the appellate
authorities
under the
respective Acts

Haresh Kumar
v. Assistant
Commissioner
(ST) [2023] 150
taxmann.com
380 (Madras)

An order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 was issued. Petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate
Authority and paid 25% of the disputed penalty, whereas, respondents had imposed penalty equivalent to 100% value of goods that was detained.
It was contended that once there was a pre-deposit of the amount in terms of Section 107(6), the respondents ought to have released the goods.
The High Court held that once order is stayed, the respondents can release the goods subject to such other safeguards that may be imposed by
the appellate authorities under the respective Acts. The very purpose of fixing the mandatory pre-deposit is to do away with the procedure of
granting stay after hearing, which was delaying the disposal of the appeal earlier. The Officer who detained the goods becomes functus officio,
once there is a mandatory pre-deposit, the order has no force and all further recovery proceedings will be subject to the final outcome of the
appeal. The High court directed the petitioner to deposit the maximum penalty of 200% of the tax to safeguard the interest of the revenue.
Cases Referred- TCI Freight v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2022] 143 taxmann.com 115 (Madras

2

Section
73 and
Section 6

Second Officer
cannot initiate
proceedings by
issuing DRC-01
and passing the
order on the
same matter
which is already
seized by the
first officer by
issuing DRC01A

SSB Petro
Products v.
Assistant
Commissioner,
State Tax
[2023] 150
taxmann.com
381 (Calcutta)

In the instant case, issue before the High Court was whether an officer (referred as “second officer”) could have initiated fresh proceedings by
issue of DRC-01 and passing order thereafter, when another officer (referred as “first officer”) was seized of the matter and intimation in Form
GSTDRC-01A dated 05.03.2021 was issued to which the appellants had submitted their reply dated 08.03.2021 and the said reply was neither
considered nor rejected and the matter was kept pending. The appellant further stated that he was not aware of the said notice for being uploaded
in the portal and they came to know of the same only after the sum of Rs. 1,84,930/- was paid from their electronic credit ledger and immediately
thereafter, the appellants applied for a copy of the order and thereafter preferred the appeal but by then the period of limitation for filing the appeal
had expired.
The High Court observed that the option which was available to the first officer was to consider the representation/reply and if not satisfied, could
have proceeded to issue SCN under Section 74(1) of the Act which option the first officer did not exercise and the matter was left to linger. Thus,
the preliminary proceedings could not have been initiated by the second officer when proceeding initiated by the first officer for the very same
amount on the very same allegation was not taken to the logical end. It was further observed that when the statutory appeal for the order passed
by the second officer was pending before the appellate authority, the first officer had dropped the proceedings. From the final report of the first
officer, it was seen that the proceedings were closed by the first officer only on 24.01.2023. Thus, for all purposes, it was deemed that the
proceedings initiated by the first officer pursuant to intimation dated 05.03.2021 had attained finality and on the said date, the appeal as against
the proceedings initiated by the second officer was already pending before the appellate authority.
Thus, the High Court considering peculiar facts and circumstances held that the appeal should not be treated to be as time barred

3

Section
29 and
Section
30

Cancellation of
registration of
the recipient for
wrongful
availment of ITC
as the supplier
did not deposit
the tax

Electro Steel
Corporation v.
State of
Jharkhand
[2023] 150
taxmann.com
407
(Jharkhand)

The registration of the petitioner was cancelled on account of the allegation that they have availed excess credit than the ITC accrued in GSTR2A/2B in violation of Provisions of Section 16. It was contended by the petitioner that they had duly paid the amount to the supplier but supplier
neither filed the return and nor filed GSTR-1.
The High Court observed that the claim of the petitioner than they have paid the entire amount to the supplier neds verification that whether at all
the entire amount being paid by them was towards the invoices raised by the supplier. The High Court directed that in case the verification exercise
reveals that even after due payment to the supplier, the same has not been deposited, it would be open for the competent authority to take
appropriate decision