🔥📛 Delhi HC to continue hearing challenge to NAA orders on merits
➡️ The Delhi High Court has listed over 100 writ petitions filed by major players in the real estate, retail, and fast-moving consumer goods sectors for a hearing on August 13, 2025. These petitions challenge orders passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) regarding the correctness of the profiteered amounts determined.
➡️ The court has directed the Nodal Counsels to supply written submissions in these cases. The assessees have challenged the NAA orders before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on various grounds, including unintended increases in proportionate Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to a switch in taxation regimes, the formula used to calculate the profiteered amount, and increases in raw material costs.
➡️ The Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) argued that the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering clause, specifically Section 171 of the CGST Act, has been upheld. Therefore, the DGAP suggested that the assessees should be relegated to a Single Bench for consideration of each matter.
➡️ However, the assessees urged the court to continue with the Division Bench hearing, as only a part of the decision was taken by the Division Bench while upholding the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering clause.
➡️ The Delhi High Court indicated its intention to conclude the hearing on the merits of the case expeditiously and appointed nodal counsels for this purpose.
✔️ Delhi HC – Pyramid Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. UOI [W.P.(C) 10999/2018]
🔥📛 HC: GST cannot be part of employees minimum wages quoted in tender document
➡️ The Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) clarified that GST cannot be considered a part of the minimum wages required to be paid to employees, rejecting a writ petition challenging a tender award.
➡️ The HC explained that the definition of GST excludes it from being paid by employers to employees as wages, as it is an independent transaction with the government.
➡️ The tender in question was floated by the Commandant, Special Armed Forces, for employing 60 unskilled and 2 skilled employees for housekeeping and security services.
➡️ The petitioner challenged the tender award, claiming their bid met the Labour Ministry’s minimum wage requirement and that the award was based on the applicability of GST.
➡️ The HC dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit and upholding the tender award to the respondent.
✔️ Madhya Pradesh HC – Blue Caps Total Security Services Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others [WRIT PETITION No. 38373 of 2024]
🔥📛 HC: Absent discrepancy between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B w.r.t ‘self-assessed-tax’, circumventing adjudicatory mechanism u/s-73/74 unsustainable
➡️ The Calcutta High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging the recovery of self-assessed tax under Section 75(12) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act, 2017, which bypassed the regular recovery procedures under Sections 73 and 74 of the same Act.
➡️ The assessee had received a notice in Form GST-ASMT-10 indicating a shortfall of approximately Rs 8.09 lakhs and discrepancies in GSTR-9. Despite the assessee’s response, the revenue authorities proceeded under Section 75(12) instead of invoking Sections 73 and 74.
➡️ The High Court interpreted Section 75(12) and clarified that self-assessed tax refers to tax payable on outward supplies under Section 37 that are not included in the return under Section 39. Since there was no discrepancy between the assessee’s GSTR-1 (filed under Section 37) and GSTR-3B (filed under Section 39), Section 75(12) could not be invoked.
➡️ The court noted the absence of details in the GST-ASMT-10 notice indicating any such discrepancy and held that even if the assessee’s explanation was unacceptable, the revenue should have used Sections 65, 66, 67, 73, or 74, not Section 75(12).
➡️ The matter was remanded back to the revenue authorities for fresh consideration, with the assessee directed to respond accordingly.
✔️ Calcutta HC – Kuddus Ali, Proprietor of M/s. Kuddus Ali Construction. v. The Assistnat Commissioner of Central Tax, Maldah CGST & CX Division, Siliguri Commissionerate. & Ors [WPA 6004 of 2025]
🔥📛 Tax Official was justified in blocking ITC due to sufficient material available for passing such order: HC
➡️ The Additional Commissioner (Investigation) of State Taxes, Central Investigation Bureau, Bihar, conducted a search at the principal place of business of M/s TDML Services and found that the entity did not exist at the specified location.
➡️ The Additional Commissioner directed the Joint Commissioner to take action against the petitioner, who had received and unlawfully availed the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) from M/s TDML Services.
➡️ The Joint Commissioner blocked the petitioner’s ITC amounting to Rs. 1.18 crore in the Electronic Credit Ledger.
➡️ The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the blocking of ITC, but the court held that the Additional Commissioner had sufficient materials, including the Inspector’s report, to justify the order under Rule 86-A(1) of the CGST/BGST Rules of 2017.
➡️ The court noted that the petitioner had a remedy available under paragraph 3.4 of the Guidelines for disallowing debit of the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A and dismissed the writ petition.
✔️ Patna HC – Graphic Trades (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4506 of 2025]
🔥📛 Filing of reply to SCN and pursuing appellate remedies to be allowed without questioning validity of notifications extending time limit: HC
➡️ The case involves petitions concerning the limitation period for demands raised by tax authorities, particularly for the period 2017-18 to 2019-20, where issues were raised regarding delayed issuance of show cause notices and delays in passing orders-in-original.
➡️ Petitioners challenged the validity of multiple notifications that extended deadlines for issuing show cause notices and passing adjudication orders, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for these extensions.
➡️ Petitioners argued that even if the notifications were upheld, they should still be granted relief as they were unable to file replies and avail of personal hearings due to various reasons, resulting in ex-parte adjudication orders and imposition of penalties.
➡️ Various High Courts had already taken a view on the matter, and it was pending before the Supreme Court. Depending on the categories of petitions, orders could be passed to allow petitioners to present their case before the adjudicating authority.
➡️ In some cases, petitioners might be permitted to pursue appellate remedies without delving into the question of the validity of the notifications at this stage.
✔️ Delhi HC – DJST Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P.(C) Nos. 16499/2023 and others]
🔥📛 Authority can’t ask assessee to reverse ITC again despite same being reversed prior to SCN issuance: HC
➡️ The petitioner, a firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton seed oil, mistakenly believed it was entitled to full input tax credit (ITC) for its exempt by-product, cotton oil cake, and filed returns accordingly.
➡️ Upon realizing the error and being advised of potential demands from authorities, the petitioner voluntarily reversed the proportionate ITC under Section 17(2) before receiving a show-cause notice, although this reversal was beyond the time prescribed under Section 39(9).
➡️ Despite the petitioner’s voluntary ITC reversal, the respondent authorities issued a show-cause notice, demanding further ITC reversal, which led to the petitioner making double payments of tax.
➡️ The court held that the show-cause notice should have been issued for levying interest or penalty for the late reversal of ITC, not for the initial availing of ITC on exempted goods.
➡️ The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent authority to pass a fresh de-novo order solely for the levy of interest or penalty for the late reversal of ITC.
✔️ Gujarat HC – Ajay Industries v. Union of India [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2951 of 2025]
