HIGH COURT
35 (2025) 29 Centax 281 (Bom.) Goa University vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Panjim, Goa dated 15.04.2025
Affiliation fees collected by university as part of discharge of public duties are not consideration for any supply and hence not liable to GST
FACTS
Petitioner, Goa University, was a statutory body established under the Goa University Act, 1984. It had collected fees for granting affiliation to approximately 67 colleges in Goa. In 2018, DGGI had previously raised demand under Service Tax regime on affiliation fees which was later dropped in 2019. In 2024, Respondent issued an intimation in Form DRC-01A demanding GST of ₹1.90 crore. Subsequently, a SCN was issued on 05.08.2024 demanding ₹4.83 crore (CGST + SGST) on affiliation services where demand was confirmed by Respondent in order-in-original under section 74 of CGST Act. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court.
HELD
The Hon’ble High Court held that the affiliation fees collected by the petitioner were statutory or regulatory fees and not consideration for any contractual service. The Court further observed that the petitioner’s activities were not ‘business’ within the meaning of section 2(17) nor a ‘supply’ under section 7 of the CGST Act. Respondent’s reliance on Circular No. 234/28/2024-GST dated 11.10.2024 and Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021 considering the same as taxable at 18%, being contrary to the statutory exemption granted under Notification No. 12/2017-CT (R) dated 28.06.2017 was rejected. Accordingly, the impugned SCN and consequent GST demand were quashed.
36. (2025) 27 Centax 315 (Ker.) Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board vs. Union of India dated 20.01.2025
Where multiple bank accounts were provisionally attached, defreezing of two bank accounts for conducting of genuine business operations was allowed.
FACTS
Petitioner is a statutory body constituted and governed under the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board Act engaged in sale of products of khadi and village industries. Petitioner was exempt from the payment of VAT and Service Tax on sale of khadi and village industry products which was discontinued under the GST regime. However, petitioner continued to avail exemption on sale of khadi products even under GST Law. Further SCN was issued and an order was passed under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, demanding GST since petitioner had failed to pay GST on such sales. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court.
HELD
The Hon’ble High Court held that GST Law does not provide any exemption for the sale of khadi and village industry products. Therefore, petitioner’s claim for exemption based on the provisions of earlier statutes is untenable and lacks legal foundation. Consequently, petition was dismissed.
37. (2025) 27 Centax 406 (Kar.) Sri Nanjundappa Constructions vs. Union of India dated 15.01.2025
Writ petition challenging an intimation under section 73(5) is not maintainable where neither SCN nor any Order was issued under section 73 of the CGST Act.
FACTS
Petitioner received an intimation of tax ascertainment under section 73(5) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, indicating a demand towards tax and interest on royalty payments. The intimation provided the petitioner with the option to either pay the ascertained amount along with interest or submit a response. Challenging this intimation the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court..
HELD
The Hon’ble High Court held that an intimation issued under section 73(5) of the CGST Act does not constitute a conclusive or enforceable demand. It is merely a preliminary step that offers the assessee an opportunity to voluntarily pay the ascertained tax or submit a response. Until a SCN is issued under section 73(1) and a final order is passed under section 73(9), the proceedings are incomplete. Therefore, the writ petition filed at this stage was premature and not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
38. (2025) 31 Centax 90 (Del.) India News Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Okhla Division dated 22.05.2025
Separate Summary Order in DRC-07 for each year must be uploaded even if a consolidated notice is issued for multiple years
FACTS
Respondent issued a consolidated SCN for F.Y. 2017-18 to F.Y. 2020-21 and passed a common adjudication order covering all four financial years from 2017-18 to 2020-21 for confirming tax demands on account of short payment of tax and wrongful availment of ITC. Petitioner did not submit any response against such SCN. Since SCN or summary order in DRC-07 was not issued for each financial year separately, petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition.
HELD
The Hon’ble High Court noted that section 74 of the CGST Act permits issuance of a SCN for a defined ‘period’. It further observed that issuance of a single consolidated notice and adjudication order for multiple financial years could result in procedural ambiguity. Hence the Court directed the Respondent to upload separate DRC-07 forms specifying the demand amount for each financial year independently. It further observed that the petitioner had not filed any reply to the SCN but would still be entitled to avail of the appellate remedy. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under section 107 of the Act.
39. (2025) 26 Centax 25 (Bom.)Pradeep Kumar Siddha vs. Union of India dated 18.12.2024
Revenue protection through provisional attachment of bank account must be proportionate and cannot override the assessee’s right to appeal
FACTS
Respondent provisionally attached the petitioner’s bank account and appropriated a sum of ₹62,32,400/- towards alleged tax dues. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. Subsequently, the Court directed the respondents to deposit the said amount before the Court, which was subsequently re-credited to the petitioner’s bank account. Further, an Order-in-Original was passed confirming demand of ₹1,49,87,924 towards fake invoicing and fraudulent claim of ITC, imposing a lien on the same bank account. Petitioner filed a writ petition within the prescribed time limit filing an appeal, stating that the lien prevented it from depositing the mandatory 10% of the disputed tax (₹8,76,564/-) required for filing an appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act. Being aggrieved by the lien and its impact on the right to appeal, it approached the Hon’ble High Court.
HELD
The Hon’ble High Court acknowledging the fact that Respondent’s interest needs to be protected but the same must be proportionate and should not deprive the petitioner of its statutory right to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, direction was issued to petitioner’s bank to transfer the account balance to the Court Registrar, for release of ₹8,76,564/- to Respondent as pre-deposit under section 107 of CGST Act, enabling the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks.
40. [2025] 176 taxmann.com 137 (Madras) Athiyan Exports vs. State Tax Officer, Tirunelvelli dated 18.06.2025.
Export benefits cannot be denied merely for the minor breach of not generating E-way bills or E-invoices.
FACTS
The petitioner is an exporter of coir product, which was exported pursuant to the export order from the buyer abroad. The petitioner was required to generate an E-Invoice and an E-way bill before transporting the goods from the place of manufacture for the exported product. However, without generating an E-Invoice and E-way bill, the goods were transported on three different trucks based on a commercial invoice.
Two of the consignments reached the port; however, one consignment was intercepted by the respondents in accordance with section 129 of the respective GST enactments and therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner in Form GST MOV-07.
The petitioner paid the amount and the goods were released, however petitioner was denied entire export incentives in the order. The petitioner therefore challenged the impugned order before the Court, stating that although the petitioner had violated section 129 of the respective GST enactments, the export incentives cannot be denied, as per the condition under section 129 of the respective GST enactments. As the entire export incentives were wiped out by the impugned order.
HELD
The Hon’ble Court held that the assessee has admittedly violated conditions prescribed under section 129 and hence is liable for penalty. However, the assessee had indeed exported goods; hence, a lesser penalty could be imposed as held by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1969] 2 SCC 627 and the export incentive could not be denied for a technical and venial breach of the provisions of section 129.
Note: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1969] 2 SCC 627 held that an order imposing penalty for failure to fulfil a statutory obligation arises from a quasi-criminal proceeding. Penalty should not ordinarily be imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct or consciously disregarded its obligation. Penalty is not to be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. The decision to impose penalty rests within the authority’s discretion, exercised judicially and considering all relevant circumstances. Even where a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority may rightly decline to impose a penalty if the breach is technical or venial or stems from a bona fide belief that compliance was not required. Accordingly, allowing the petition, Hon. Court directed to appropriate an amount of ₹25,000/- from the amount paid by the petitioner and to adjust the balance amount against future liability of the petitioner.
41. [2025] 176 taxmann.com 30 (Himachal Pradesh) Kunal Aluminium Company vs. State of Himachal Pradesh dated 26.06.2025
If a penalty is imposed, in the presence of all the valid documents, even if the e-way bill has not been generated, in the absence of any determination to evade tax, it cannot be sustained.
FACTS
The vehicle and the goods therein (which were imported by the petitioner on payment of customs duty and IGST) were detained under section 129 of the Act. The person in charge of the conveyance/vehicle could not produce any waybill for the movement of consignment. Due to the urgent need for the imported material, the goods were released by the respondents upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee as security. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed.
HELD
The Hon’ble Court held that penalty imposed by the authorities is only a civil liability, though penal in character. Hence, for invoking the proceedings under section 129(3) of the Act, section 130 thereof is required to be read together where the intent to evade payment of tax is mandatory while issuing notice or while passing the order of detention, seizure or demand of penalty or tax, as the case may be. Explaining further, the Hon’ble Court held that intention to evade tax for the imposition of penalty is sine qua non before imposing penalty. In other words, penalty in such matters would require an element of “mens rea”. The Hon’ble Court relied upon various judicial pronouncements including decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which was later approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) vs. Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 241 / 90 GST 479/57 GSTL 97 (SC)/(2022) 14 SCC 157, wherein the Court had held in favour of the assessee and underscored that authorities must not presume evasion of tax solely on procedural lapses, such as expiry of an e-way bill, especially when valid reasons are provided.
The Hon’ble Court held that the essence of any penal imposition is intrinsically linked to the presence of mens rea, and clearly, the imposition of penalties without a clear indication of intent has resulted in an arbitrary exercise of authority, undermining the principles of justice. The order, therefore, stands vulnerable to challenge on the grounds of disproportionate punitive measures meted out in the absence of concrete evidence substantiating an intent to evade tax liabilities. Tax evasion is a serious allegation that necessitates a robust evidentiary basis to withstand legal scrutiny; mere technical errors, without any potential financial implications, should not be made the grounds for imposing penalties. The underlying philosophy is to maintain a fair and just tax system, where penalties are proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
42. [2025] 176 taxmann.com 35 (Bombay) Galaxy International vs. Union of India dated 24.06.2025
Notice under section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act is required to be served on the person who owes any amount to the person in default and it cannot be served directly to his bank.
FACTS
Petitioner was allegedly owing an amount payable to the assessee in default. A Notice was directly served to the petitioner’s bank for recovery of the amount under section 79 of the CGST Act without serving any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said recovery notice.
HELD
The Hon’ble Court held that Notice under section 79(1)(c) has to be served upon the petitioner so that the petitioner would have an opportunity of proving to the satisfaction of the officer issuing the Notice that no amount was due and payable by the petitioner to the person in default. The Court noted that no such Notice was admittedly served upon the petitioner. Hence, referring to the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of S.J.R. Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Superintendent of Central Tax [2024] 168 taxmann.com 544 / 107 GST 182/92 GSTL 154 (Karnataka), the Hon’ble Court quashed and set aside the impugned Notice, giving liberty to the department to issue fresh Notice to the petitioner.
43. Addwrap Packaging (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 175 taxmann.com 592 (Gujarat) dated 13.06.2025
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was omitted prospectively by Notification No. 20/2024 and shall apply to all pending proceedings and cases that have not attained finality
FACTS:
In this case, the issue before the Court was whether Notification No.20/2024 dated 8th October, 2024, whereby Rule 96(10) has been omitted with effect from the date of notification, would be applicable retrospectively or not and whether the said notification would be applicable to all the pending litigation/proceedings or not.
HELD:
The Hon’ble Court held as under:
a. The omission of Rule 96(10) cannot be considered curative or remedial, as its removal impacts the substantive rights of assessees to claim IGST refunds on exports where duty-free inputs are used. Applying such an omission retrospectively is not justified, as neither the 2024 Rules nor the GST Council’s recommendations authorise a retrospective effect. The GST Council has recommended only prospective application, which is binding on the Government.
b. The ‘omission’ would be included in the interpretation of the word ‘repeal’ and hence omission of Rule 96(10) with effect from 8th October, 2024, would amount to repeal without any saving clause. Therefore, repeal without any saving clause would destroy any proceeding, whether or not yet begun or pending at the time of enactment of the repealing Act and not already prosecuted to a final judgment, so as to create a vested right.
c. The recommendations of the GST Council to omit Rule 96(10) prospectively would apply to all the pending proceedings and cases. The contention on behalf of the Revenue that the petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the validity of Rule 96(10) cannot be said to be pending proceedings is without any basis because the petitioners have also challenged the show cause notices as well as orders-in-original passed by the respondents by invoking Rule 96(10) for rejecting the refund claims of the petitioners and therefore, it can be said that these petitions are nothing but pending proceedings before the Court which has not achieved finality when the Notification No.20/2024 came into force with effect from 8th October, 2024. The said notification would therefore be applicable to all the pending proceedings/cases where final adjudication has not taken place.
d. The question of challenge to the vires and validity of rule 96(10) was not decided by the Court.