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
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

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Reffered

1

Section
54

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

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

-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

-

2

Section
16

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

Gajrar Singh Ranawat v.
Union of India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 260
(Rajasthan)

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

-

3

Section
15

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
taxmann.com 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.

-