LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 08.08.2025
🔥📛 SC: Reaffirms pre-GST position on mobile towers ceasing to be an ‘immovable property’; Upholds HC judgment
➡️ The SC refused to entertain the Revenue’s challenge against the Delhi HC ruling in Bharti Airtel, which held that mobile towers are not “immovable property” and thus qualify for input tax credit (ITC).
➡️ The Court rejected Revenue’s attempt to differentiate the legal position under the earlier service tax regime from the GST regime, terming such arguments as impermissible “hair-splitting.”
➡️ Senior Advocate, for the assessee, argued that the law aims to deny ITC only in respect of immovable property, both pre- and post-GST—a position already upheld by the SC in the assessee’s own service tax case.
➡️ The Delhi HC had classified telecom towers as “plant and machinery,” which fall within the exclusion clause to the ITC restriction under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, thereby allowing credit.
➡️ With the SC’s refusal to interfere, the Delhi HC decision stands, settling that telecom towers qualify as “plant and machinery” and are eligible for ITC on inputs and input services used for their setup.
✔️ SC – Commissioner Vs Bharti Airtel Limited [Diary No. 35416-2025]
🔥📛 Pre-deposit of 20% mandatory for maintainability of appeal, upholds HC’s judgment
➡️ Telangana High Court held that under Section 16(4) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, an assessee must deposit 20% of the disputed tax, interest, or both for the appellate authority to entertain an appeal.
➡️ The HC rejected the assessee’s plea to reduce the mandatory pre-deposit to 10%, emphasizing that the statute leaves no discretion for lowering the percentage.
➡️ The HC dismissed the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory 20% deposit, as required by law.
➡️ The SC dismissed the assessee’s Special Leave Petition, finding no legal error in the HC’s interpretation or its dismissal of the appeal.
➡️ While upholding the dismissal, the SC granted the assessee liberty to pursue other legal remedies available under law.
✔️ SC – Triveni Engineers Vs. Assessing Authority, CT & GST Circle, Barbil & Ors. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20880/2025]
🔥📛 HC directs GST officer to refund/reverse amount recovered by mistake along with interest
➡️ The tax department recovered the demanded CGST from the assessee’s account before the statutory three-month period for challenging the demand had expired, infringing on the assessee’s right to appeal.
➡️ The Assistant Commissioner’s certificate explicitly acknowledged that the GST amount had been recovered by mistake.
➡️ Recovery before the permitted appeal period contravened statutory protections provided to taxpayers under GST law.
➡️ The court directed the respondent authority to rectify the error and refund/reverse the wrongly recovered amount to the original account.
➡️ The refund/reversal must include interest as prescribed under the GST statute for amounts wrongly recovered.
✔️ Himachal Pradesh HC – Bhawya Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise [CWPs No. 11694, 11696 & 11697 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC issued notice to hear writ against order passed by adjudicating authority for difference in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B
➡️ The petitioner mistakenly reported the turnover of its sister concern in its own GSTR-1 for Oct–Dec 2017, while correctly declaring its own turnover in GSTR-3B for the same period.
➡️ The adjudicating authority raised a tax demand based on the difference between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, treating the excess turnover in GSTR-1 as taxable.
➡️ In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reconciliation between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, explaining the error and asserting that tax on the sister concern’s turnover was not payable by them.
➡️ The adjudicating officer rejected the reconciliation, citing insufficient supporting material, despite the fact that the sister concern’s GSTR-1 matched its GSTR-3B and was accepted by the department.
➡️ Considering the petitioner’s submissions and the admitted acceptance of the sister concern’s filings, the court issued notice for final disposal of the matter.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Sanghvi Metal Corporation v. Union of India [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9857 of 2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC directs GST Dept. to decide application for cancellation of registration within 30 days
➡️ The assessee applied for cancellation of GST registration on 11-04-2025.
➡️ The department sought certain clarifications but did not decide on the application even after a considerable lapse of time.
➡️ As per Rule 22(3) of the CGST Rules, the proper officer must decide an application for cancellation of registration within 30 days from the date of receipt.
➡️ The assessee argued that the delay was contrary to the statutory time limit prescribed under Rule 22(3).
➡️ The authority was directed to take a decision on the assessee’s application within 30 days from the date of the present order.
✔️ Delhi HC – Gagan Deep Singh v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) [W.P. (C) No. 10725 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC quashes order as notice of personal hearing wasn’t served upon assessee by any other mode except uploading on GST portal
➡️ The assessee filed the GST return for 2020–21 and paid the admitted tax as per its books. The department later passed an ex-parte assessment order, raising demand along with interest and penalty.
➡️ The assessee contended that no proper notice of personal hearing was served before passing the order; the notice was uploaded only under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, not under the main “Notices and Orders” section.
➡️ It was undisputed that the department did not serve the personal hearing notice by any other means (physical delivery, email, or SMS), relying solely on its placement under “Additional Notices and Orders”.
➡️ The court accepted that such a mode of service was insufficient when no other service method was adopted, thereby depriving the assessee of the opportunity to respond or attend the hearing.
➡️ The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded, directing the department to grant the assessee an opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice and to attend a personal hearing before fresh adjudication.
✔️ Patna HC – Raja Babu Kapra Ghar v. Union of India [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6640 of 2025]
