⚖️ Advocate-Client Privilege Upheld: Calcutta HC
- Case: Himangshu Kumar Ray v. GST Dept
- Ruling: GST authorities cannot issue multiple notices to advocates seeking client details in fraud probes.
- Reason: Violates Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act protecting advocate-client confidentiality.
⏳ Refund Limitation Clarified: Patna HC
- Case: Sai Steel v. State of Bihar
- Ruling: Limitation for GST refund starts from the date of correct IGST payment, not from the original CGST/SGST payment.
- Impact: Refund claim allowed despite initial rejection based on outdated limitation interpretation.
Nizam Pakku Classification Dispute: Madras HC
- Case: Azam Laminators Pvt. Ltd. v. DGGI
- Ruling: Quashed reclassification attempt; upheld 5% GST rate under Chapter 0802.
- Reason: Classification already settled by SC, CESTAT, and AAAR; reclassification was abuse of law.
Pan-India GST Fraud Bail Denied: Chhattisgarh HC
- Case: Anush Kumar Gangwani
- Ruling: Bail rejected due to seriousness and scale of fraud involving shell firms and fake invoices.
- Loss to Exchequer: ₹5.53 crore.
CA Identity Misused in GST Scam: Delhi HC
- Case: Shashi Kant Gupta
- Ruling: Bail granted after 8 months in custody; trial yet to begin.
- Conditions: Strict bail terms including passport surrender and cooperation.
⚡ Captive Power ITC Refund Allowed: Gujarat HC
- Case: Atul Ltd.
- Ruling: Refund of Compensation Cess on coal used for SEZ/export supplies allowed.
- Reason: Unutilized ITC eligible for refund even if output doesn’t attract cess.
Notification 56/2023 Invalid: Madras HC
- Case: SKT Swamy Auto Agency v. Union of India
- Ruling: Notification extending GST order timelines quashed.
- Reason: No exceptional circumstances under Section 168A of CGST Act.
Reasoned Orders Mandatory: Jharkhand HC
- Case: GST Appellate Order
- Ruling: Quashed order lacking reasoning; emphasized duty to explain decisions.
- Quote: “Inscrutable face of the sphinx cannot guide justice.”
️ Interim Bail Made Absolute: Gauhati HC
- Case: Abhimanyu Kumar (Trader)
- Ruling: Interim bail confirmed; full cooperation with investigation mandated.
⚖️ Dual Proceedings Barred: Chhattisgarh HC
- Case: SECL v. CGST Dept
- Ruling: State and Centre cannot initiate GST proceedings on same issue.
- Outcome: ₹120 crore CGST demand upheld under Reverse Charge Mechanism.
Attachment Order Expires in 1 Year: Madras HC
- Case: K. Venkatesan v. DGGI
- Ruling: Section 83 CGST attachment lapses after one year; cannot block SARFAESI recovery.
Onus to Prove Payments Lies with Company: Calcutta HC
- Case: Tara Lohia Pvt. Ltd.
- Ruling: Company must prove sundry creditor payments within 180 days, even if not requested during audit.
- Impact: Writ dismissed; appeal allowed on other grounds.
Source Taxscan
