The petitioner, Pradeep Goyal, filed this writ petition under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the Union of India and the GST Council to establish a robust mechanism for tracking and ensuring compliance of Overseas Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) service providers with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws.The petitioner requested several measures, including a system to monitor GST paid by non-taxable online recipients (Non-NTORs) under reverse charge, modification of GSTR-5A returns to include such data, verification of receipts earned by foreign OIDAR providers, mandating fixed establishments in India for such providers, and ensuring proper reporting, audit, and compliance mechanisms for overseas OIDAR entities similar to those applicable to domestic service providers.The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties, disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation along with a copy of the petition to the GST Council. The Court directed that, upon receipt of such representation, the GST Council shall examine the petitioner’s grievances and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.The Court, while not issuing any substantive directions on the policy measures sought, ensured that the petitioner’s concerns would be duly considered by the competent authority. All pending applications were disposed of.
Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Others 29-07-2025
The petitioner, Pradeep Goyal, filed this writ petition under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the Union of India and the GST Council to establish a robust mechanism for tracking and ensuring compliance of Overseas Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) service providers with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws.The petitioner requested several measures, including a system to monitor GST paid by non-taxable online recipients (Non-NTORs) under reverse charge, modification of GSTR-5A returns to include such data, verification of receipts earned by foreign OIDAR providers, mandating fixed establishments in India for such providers, and ensuring proper reporting, audit, and compliance mechanisms for overseas OIDAR entities similar to those applicable to domestic service providers.The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties, disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation along with a copy of the petition to the GST Council. The Court directed that, upon receipt of such representation, the GST Council shall examine the petitioner’s grievances and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.The Court, while not issuing any substantive directions on the policy measures sought, ensured that the petitioner’s concerns would be duly considered by the competent authority. All pending applications were disposed of.
The appellant, M/s ASP Traders, a registered dealer of red arecanut from Karnataka, consigned goods to Delhi which were detained by the Mobile Squad, Jhansi, under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”). The detention was based on alleged discrepancies in documents and missing goods. A notice under Section 129(3) was issued on 21 January 2022, to which the appellant replied. Owing to business exigencies, the appellant deposited ₹7,20,440 towards IGST and secured the release of goods on 27 January 2022.However, no final order was passed under Section 129(3). Despite repeated representations, the authorities maintained that proceedings stood concluded under Section 129(5) of the Act. The Allahabad High Court upheld this view, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and holding that once payment was made and goods were released, proceedings were deemed to have concluded.On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that every show cause notice must culminate in a reasoned, speaking order. The payment made by the appellant could not be treated as voluntary when objections were already on record. The Court emphasized that Section 129(5) does not dispense with the mandatory requirement under Section 129(3) to pass an order, which is necessary to preserve the taxpayer’s statutory right to appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.The Court relied upon the CBIC Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13 April 2018, which mandates issuance of a formal order in Form GST MOV-09 and its summary in Form GST DRC-07. It held that failure to do so violates procedural fairness and Article 265 of the Constitution, as no tax or penalty can be levied or collected without authority of law.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment and directed the concerned officer to pass a reasoned final order under Section 129(3) in Form GST MOV-09, upload its summary in Form GST DRC-07, and grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant within one month.
M/s ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 24-07-2025
The appellant, M/s ASP Traders, a registered dealer of red arecanut from Karnataka, consigned goods to Delhi which were detained by the Mobile Squad, Jhansi, under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”). The detention was based on alleged discrepancies in documents and missing goods. A notice under Section 129(3) was issued on 21 January 2022, to which the appellant replied. Owing to business exigencies, the appellant deposited ₹7,20,440 towards IGST and secured the release of goods on 27 January 2022.However, no final order was passed under Section 129(3). Despite repeated representations, the authorities maintained that proceedings stood concluded under Section 129(5) of the Act. The Allahabad High Court upheld this view, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and holding that once payment was made and goods were released, proceedings were deemed to have concluded.On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that every show cause notice must culminate in a reasoned, speaking order. The payment made by the appellant could not be treated as voluntary when objections were already on record. The Court emphasized that Section 129(5) does not dispense with the mandatory requirement under Section 129(3) to pass an order, which is necessary to preserve the taxpayer’s statutory right to appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.The Court relied upon the CBIC Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13 April 2018, which mandates issuance of a formal order in Form GST MOV-09 and its summary in Form GST DRC-07. It held that failure to do so violates procedural fairness and Article 265 of the Constitution, as no tax or penalty can be levied or collected without authority of law.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment and directed the concerned officer to pass a reasoned final order under Section 129(3) in Form GST MOV-09, upload its summary in Form GST DRC-07, and grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant within one month.
The petitioner sought payment of interest on delayed refund already sanctioned by the authorities. The factual background showed that though the refund was sanctioned in February 2020, the amount was released only in November 2024. The State authorities sought to shift liability to Central authorities.The Court held that the assessee cannot be made to suffer due to inter-departmental disputes between State and Central authorities. Since refund was delayed beyond sixty days, interest under Section 56 was held payable. Directions were issued for payment of interest in accordance with law.
M/s Tata Aldesa (J.V.) vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 24-07-2025
The petitioner sought payment of interest on delayed refund already sanctioned by the authorities. The factual background showed that though the refund was sanctioned in February 2020, the amount was released only in November 2024. The State authorities sought to shift liability to Central authorities.The Court held that the assessee cannot be made to suffer due to inter-departmental disputes between State and Central authorities. Since refund was delayed beyond sixty days, interest under Section 56 was held payable. Directions were issued for payment of interest in accordance with law.
The petitioners challenged rejection of refund of accumulated compensation cess paid on coal used for manufacturing goods exported on payment of IGST. The factual background showed reliance by authorities on circulars restricting refund of cess.The Court held that provisions of the Compensation to States Act permit availment and refund of cess credit on zero-rated supplies. Circulars contrary to statutory provisions were held to be unsustainable. The refund rejection orders were quashed.
Atul Limited & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. 24-07-2025
The petitioners challenged rejection of refund of accumulated compensation cess paid on coal used for manufacturing goods exported on payment of IGST. The factual background showed reliance by authorities on circulars restricting refund of cess.The Court held that provisions of the Compensation to States Act permit availment and refund of cess credit on zero-rated supplies. Circulars contrary to statutory provisions were held to be unsustainable. The refund rejection orders were quashed.
The petitioners, the Additional Director of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and another officer, filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court challenging the common order dated 15 January 2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 10680 of 2024 and 14723 of 2024. The High Court’s judgment concerned disputes arising from the exercise of investigatory and regulatory powers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in relation to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). The DGGI alleged procedural lapses and sought reversal of the High Court’s findings that curtailed its investigative authority.The Supreme Court, after hearing the Additional Solicitor General and senior counsel appearing for both sides, declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision. The Court found no sufficient grounds to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The petitions were dismissed at the admission stage, and all pending applications, including those for condonation of delay and interim relief, were disposed of accordingly.
Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Another v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission 21-07-2025
The petitioners, the Additional Director of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and another officer, filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court challenging the common order dated 15 January 2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 10680 of 2024 and 14723 of 2024. The High Court’s judgment concerned disputes arising from the exercise of investigatory and regulatory powers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in relation to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). The DGGI alleged procedural lapses and sought reversal of the High Court’s findings that curtailed its investigative authority.The Supreme Court, after hearing the Additional Solicitor General and senior counsel appearing for both sides, declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision. The Court found no sufficient grounds to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The petitions were dismissed at the admission stage, and all pending applications, including those for condonation of delay and interim relief, were disposed of accordingly.
The petitioners, Union of India and others, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 18 December 2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos. 14649 to 14653 of 2020. The High Court had granted relief to the respondents relying upon its earlier decision in Ascent Meditech Ltd. v. Union of India and Others decided on 17 October 2024 in SCA No. 18317 of 2023.It was noted that the said judgment in Ascent Meditech Ltd. had already been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8134 of 2025 and was dismissed on 28 March 2025. Despite this fact, the present petition, filed in June 2025, did not disclose that the earlier SLP had been dismissed.Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Union of India & Ors. v. M/s Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 18-07-2025
The petitioners, Union of India and others, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 18 December 2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos. 14649 to 14653 of 2020. The High Court had granted relief to the respondents relying upon its earlier decision in Ascent Meditech Ltd. v. Union of India and Others decided on 17 October 2024 in SCA No. 18317 of 2023.It was noted that the said judgment in Ascent Meditech Ltd. had already been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8134 of 2025 and was dismissed on 28 March 2025. Despite this fact, the present petition, filed in June 2025, did not disclose that the earlier SLP had been dismissed.Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The Union of India filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court challenging three judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 29 January 2025 in Writ Petitions Nos. 27108, 22055, and 21998 of 2021. The High Court had held that “flavoured milk” is classifiable under Tariff Item 0403 (“buttermilk, curdled milk, and other fermented or acidified milk and cream”) and therefore taxable at 5% under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.The Union of India contended that flavoured milk is a distinct product that falls under Tariff Item 2202 (“beverages containing milk”), taxable at 12%. It argued that the process of flavouring, sweetening, and heat treatment transforms the product into a beverage, not plain or fermented milk. The respondents, M/s Heritage Foods Ltd. and others, argued that flavoured milk remains milk in composition and character, with flavouring merely enhancing taste, not altering classification.The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by the Union of India. It noted that the issue of classification of “flavoured milk” had already been decided by the Court in Union of India v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (SLP (C) Diary No. 17602 of 2025), where it upheld classification under Tariff Item 0403 with 5% GST.Following that precedent, the Court held that the High Court’s decision in favour of the 5% rate was consistent with the law. Consequently, the present petitions were dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Union of India v. M/s Heritage Foods Limited & Another 17-07-2025
The Union of India filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court challenging three judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 29 January 2025 in Writ Petitions Nos. 27108, 22055, and 21998 of 2021. The High Court had held that “flavoured milk” is classifiable under Tariff Item 0403 (“buttermilk, curdled milk, and other fermented or acidified milk and cream”) and therefore taxable at 5% under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.The Union of India contended that flavoured milk is a distinct product that falls under Tariff Item 2202 (“beverages containing milk”), taxable at 12%. It argued that the process of flavouring, sweetening, and heat treatment transforms the product into a beverage, not plain or fermented milk. The respondents, M/s Heritage Foods Ltd. and others, argued that flavoured milk remains milk in composition and character, with flavouring merely enhancing taste, not altering classification.The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by the Union of India. It noted that the issue of classification of “flavoured milk” had already been decided by the Court in Union of India v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (SLP (C) Diary No. 17602 of 2025), where it upheld classification under Tariff Item 0403 with 5% GST.Following that precedent, the Court held that the High Court’s decision in favour of the 5% rate was consistent with the law. Consequently, the present petitions were dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
The petitioner sought refund of the entire pre-deposit made during VAT appellate proceedings, part of which was paid in cash and part by utilisation of ITC. Although the appellate proceedings culminated in favour of the petitioner, the department refunded only the cash component and withheld the portion paid through ITC.The Court held that once the appeal is finally decided in favour of the assessee, the entire pre-deposit is liable to be refunded in cash in terms of the transitional provisions. Retention of the amount paid through ITC was held to be without authority of law. Directions were issued to refund the balance amount with applicable interest.
Flipkart India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. 16-07-2025
The petitioner sought refund of the entire pre-deposit made during VAT appellate proceedings, part of which was paid in cash and part by utilisation of ITC. Although the appellate proceedings culminated in favour of the petitioner, the department refunded only the cash component and withheld the portion paid through ITC.The Court held that once the appeal is finally decided in favour of the assessee, the entire pre-deposit is liable to be refunded in cash in terms of the transitional provisions. Retention of the amount paid through ITC was held to be without authority of law. Directions were issued to refund the balance amount with applicable interest.
The petitioners, Union of India and another, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 12 March 2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 114/2025. The matter relates to the interpretation and application of Section 25(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which stipulates that each registration obtained under the Act shall be treated as a distinct person for all purposes of the statute.During the hearing, the petitioners, represented by the learned Additional Solicitor General, contended that the Delhi High Court’s decision had failed to give due effect to this statutory provision. It was argued that the High Court’s view disregarded the legislative intent that separate registrations must be considered as distinct taxable entities, which directly impacts the manner in which tax liabilities and compliance are to be determined under the CGST framework.After hearing the petitioner’s counsel, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable within six weeks, thereby seeking their response to the issues raised in the petition.
Union of India & Anr. v. M/s B Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 15-07-2025
The petitioners, Union of India and another, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 12 March 2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 114/2025. The matter relates to the interpretation and application of Section 25(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which stipulates that each registration obtained under the Act shall be treated as a distinct person for all purposes of the statute.During the hearing, the petitioners, represented by the learned Additional Solicitor General, contended that the Delhi High Court’s decision had failed to give due effect to this statutory provision. It was argued that the High Court’s view disregarded the legislative intent that separate registrations must be considered as distinct taxable entities, which directly impacts the manner in which tax liabilities and compliance are to be determined under the CGST framework.After hearing the petitioner’s counsel, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable within six weeks, thereby seeking their response to the issues raised in the petition.
The appeal arose from an interim order of the Karnataka High Court granting interim bail to respondent No. 1, Ritu Nitin Minocha, who was accused under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 of being involved in large-scale tax evasion allegedly exceeding ₹660 crores. The prosecution alleged that the respondent and her husband jointly operated multiple companies to defraud the revenue. The appellant contended that the High Court had granted bail in undue haste, within a day of the writ petition being filed, without disclosing that a bail application was already pending before the Trial Court.The respondent argued that she was a woman and that the alleged tax liability pertaining to her companies was below ₹5 crores, which under the CGST Act would make the offences non-cognizable. It was further contended that the clubbing of liabilities of her husband’s companies was unjustified.The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim bail order granted by the Karnataka High Court. The Court held that the manner and timeframe in which the High Court entertained and disposed of the writ petition raised serious procedural concerns, as the Trial Court was already seized of the matter. It directed respondent No. 1 to surrender before the Trial Court within one week and ordered that the pending proceedings before the High Court be reassigned to another bench by the Chief Justice for consideration on merits.The Court clarified that all questions of law and fact remained open to be argued before the High Court and that the interim protection granted earlier would cease upon surrender. The Supreme Court’s order was directed to be communicated immediately to the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court for compliance.
Senior Intelligence Officer v. Ritu Nitin Minocha & Another 15-07-2025
The appeal arose from an interim order of the Karnataka High Court granting interim bail to respondent No. 1, Ritu Nitin Minocha, who was accused under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 of being involved in large-scale tax evasion allegedly exceeding ₹660 crores. The prosecution alleged that the respondent and her husband jointly operated multiple companies to defraud the revenue. The appellant contended that the High Court had granted bail in undue haste, within a day of the writ petition being filed, without disclosing that a bail application was already pending before the Trial Court.The respondent argued that she was a woman and that the alleged tax liability pertaining to her companies was below ₹5 crores, which under the CGST Act would make the offences non-cognizable. It was further contended that the clubbing of liabilities of her husband’s companies was unjustified.The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim bail order granted by the Karnataka High Court. The Court held that the manner and timeframe in which the High Court entertained and disposed of the writ petition raised serious procedural concerns, as the Trial Court was already seized of the matter. It directed respondent No. 1 to surrender before the Trial Court within one week and ordered that the pending proceedings before the High Court be reassigned to another bench by the Chief Justice for consideration on merits.The Court clarified that all questions of law and fact remained open to be argued before the High Court and that the interim protection granted earlier would cease upon surrender. The Supreme Court’s order was directed to be communicated immediately to the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court for compliance.
