Key GST Judgments by Supreme Court and High Courts

Issue: Revision of GSTR-3B and claim of belated ITC refund

Summary: The Supreme Court held that once GSTR-3B is filed, it cannot be revised beyond the statutorily prescribed time. Bharti Airtel had sought to revise past returns to claim additional ITC, arguing that the initial returns were based on estimated figures. However, the Court emphasized that self-assessed returns are final unless amended within the time limit. The ruling reinforced the sanctity of due dates and held that system design constraints on the GST portal could not override statutory law. This judgment significantly impacted ITC planning and emphasized real-time reconciliation and compliance. It clarified that refund or revision beyond statutory deadlines is not permissible. Businesses must adopt best practices in monthly reconciliation to avoid such pitfalls. It also underlined that retrospective corrections in returns are not allowed under current law.

2. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India – Supreme Court of India (2021)

Issue: Refund of unutilized ITC under inverted duty structure

Summary: The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 89(5), which excludes input services from the refund mechanism in inverted duty cases. The Gujarat High Court had ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing refund of ITC on both goods and services. However, the Supreme Court reversed this, upholding Rule 89(5) as valid and within legislative competence. The Court acknowledged the hardship but stated that policy design limitations can’t be overridden by courts unless arbitrary. The ruling significantly impacted industries like textiles and footwear that claim such refunds. It narrowed refund eligibility and established that only input goods, not services, are refundable under inverted duty scenarios. The decision clarified the interplay between delegated legislation and the parent Act.

3. Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner CGST – Orissa High Court (2019)

Issue: ITC on construction of immovable property for letting out

Summary: The Orissa High Court held that denial of ITC merely because a building was meant for commercial renting would defeat the purpose of seamless credit. It allowed ITC on construction cost incurred by Safari Retreats for building a mall, intended to be let out on rent. The Court reasoned that since rental income is taxable, the construction expense should not be excluded from ITC. This was a pro-business interpretation aimed at ensuring tax neutrality. Though the matter is pending final disposal in the Supreme Court, the judgment encouraged similar litigations across states. It highlighted contradictions in Sections 16 and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act. It questioned whether tax paid on inputs used to create a taxable outward supply (like rent) could be blocked.

4. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India – Supreme Court of India (2022)

Issue: Levy of IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge

Summary: The Supreme Court struck down the levy of IGST on ocean freight in CIF contracts as unconstitutional and ultra vires. It ruled that such freight is already included in the value of imported goods, and a separate levy would amount to double taxation. The Court further held that the importer cannot be made liable for services rendered by a foreign shipping line to a foreign exporter. The judgment was hailed for reinforcing the principle of non-overlapping taxation. It brought immense relief to importers who had paid tax under protest and opened the door for refunds. It also clarified the scope of reverse charge mechanism and territorial jurisdiction of tax laws. The ruling ensured that taxing powers remain within constitutional boundaries.

5. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs – Supreme Court of India (2021)

Issue: Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices

Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are not “proper officers” under the Customs Act to issue show cause notices for reassessment. Though this was a customs matter, its implications extended to GST where similar jurisdictional issues arise. The judgment stressed on lawful delegation and proper assignment of functions. It rendered thousands of SCNs void, thereby impacting major revenue claims. It underscored that quasi-judicial powers must flow from proper statutory authority. The ruling prompted rethinking of departmental processes and redesign of adjudication mechanisms. It emphasized checks and balances on executive power under tax law.

6. Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh – Supreme Court of India (2021)

Issue: Provisional attachment under GST

Summary: The Court held that provisional attachment under Section 83 of CGST Act should not be invoked mechanically. It observed that such power is drastic and must be exercised with caution and safeguards. The taxpayer had challenged attachment of property without prior notice or opportunity. The Supreme Court emphasized adherence to natural justice and proportionality. It ruled that attachment should not be punitive or premature, especially when adjudication is pending. This judgment is crucial for safeguarding business operations and protecting property rights. It has curbed arbitrary practices by revenue officers and reinforced procedural fairness.

7. Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner – Calcutta High Court (2023)

Issue: Denial of ITC due to supplier’s default

Summary: The Calcutta High Court held that a buyer should not be denied ITC if they have fulfilled all statutory conditions like possession of invoice, payment of tax, and filing of returns. It stated that the buyer cannot be penalized for the seller’s failure to deposit tax to the government. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that tax liability is between supplier and government, and credit cannot be denied if buyer acted in good faith. This has major implications on Rule 36(4) and buyer-supplier disputes. It reinforces trust-based credit and discourages mechanical denial. However, the ruling also suggests that due diligence of suppliers is still a best practice.

8.B. Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India – Delhi High Court (2025)

Issue: ITC denied due to technical discrepancy in invoice

Summary: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of B. Braun Medical, allowing ITC despite minor errors in invoices such as typographical mistakes or address mismatches. The Court stated that substantive benefits should not be denied on mere procedural lapses. This decision reinforced the principle that tax credit is a vested right and cannot be taken away due to hyper-technicalities. The ruling is a significant relief for compliant businesses where documentation may not be perfect but is genuine and verifiable. It emphasized form over substance and encouraged a reasonable approach to scrutiny. It also highlighted the need for GST law to evolve with ground realities.

9. Canon India (GST Context Reference) – Various High Courts

Issue: Who is a “proper officer” under GST

Summary: Although the Canon ruling pertained to Customs, it created ripples in GST when similar questions were raised about jurisdiction of officers issuing GST notices. Multiple High Courts have since ruled that only officers properly designated under Section 2(91) and notified under Section 5 can issue valid notices. The principles of “natural justice” and “competent authority” were reinforced. This has led to scrutiny of all SCNs issued by DGGI and other investigating agencies. The judgment strengthened legal defenses in GST litigation and provided clarity on statutory delegation.