Vidhi Tax And Corporate Advocates

21/11/2025

📘 Summary: Agarwal Aromas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India

In this case, an order under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act was passed against the petitioner for alleged tax discrepancies. The petitioner deposited the disputed tax only to avoid coercive recovery but continued to contest the liability. Since the payment was made, the adjudicating authority treated the tax as fully settled and mentioned no outstanding demand in the order.

When the petitioner attempted to file an appeal under Section 107, the GST portal automatically showed "Nil disputed tax", preventing the filing of the appeal. GSTN stated that unless the jurisdictional officer recreated the demand, the portal would not allow an appeal.

The petitioner argued that a statutory right to appeal cannot be denied due to a technical glitch.

High Court’s Findings:

The right to appeal under Section 107 is a statutory right; it cannot be blocked due to GST portal technical limitations.

Procedural or technical constraints cannot override substantive justice.

GSTN must modify its software to ensure appeals can be filed even when the system auto-populates “Nil disputed tax.”

For the petitioner, the Court allowed:

Physical filing of the appeal

Appeal to be registered and decided on merits

No limitation objection to be raised since the delay was due to portal issues

Outcome:

Judgment in favour of the assessee. The Court ensured that technical glitches do not obstruct legal remedies.

29/10/2025

🚨 CBIC Clarifies Proper Officers & Monetary Limits under Sections 74A, 75(2) & 122 of CGST Act 🚨
📅 Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST | Dated: 27 Oct 2025

🔹 CBIC has assigned Proper Officers & set monetary limits for issuing SCNs, adjudication & penalties under key GST provisions — Sections 74A, 75(2), 122, and Rule 142(1A).

⚙️ Key Highlights:
✅ Section 74A: Tax determination for FY 2024–25 onwards.
✅ Section 75(2): Same officer to re-determine tax when fraud not established.
✅ Section 122: Clarifies penalty jurisdiction.
✅ Rule 142(1A): Pre-SCN notice in FORM DRC-01A made mandatory.

👩‍💼 Officer-wise Monetary Limits:
🔸 Superintendent: Up to ₹10L (₹20L IGST)
🔸 Dy./Asst. Commissioner: Up to ₹1Cr (₹2Cr IGST)
🔸 Addl./Joint Commissioner: Above these limits

💡 Why It Matters:
Brings clarity, consistency & transparency in adjudication under GST—especially with the new Section 74A. Ensures structured, fair, and efficient tax administration.

#75(2) #122

28/10/2025

🏛️ SC Upholds Gujarat HC Ruling Allowing Refund of Compensation Cess on Coal Used for Exported Goods

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union of India against the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Patson Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, thereby affirming exporters’ entitlement to refund of Compensation Cess paid on coal used in the manufacture of exported goods.

The case revolved around CBIC circulars under Section 168 of the CGST Act, which had barred refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess where exports were made on payment of IGST. The petitioners—manufacturers and exporters—argued that since exported goods are zero-rated supplies, and not liable to Compensation Cess, they were eligible for refund of unutilized ITC on such Cess.

The Gujarat High Court agreed, holding that the circulars could not override the statutory right to refund under the GST law. It ruled that exporters who pay IGST on exports are still entitled to refund of unutilized Compensation Cess ITC.

With the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP, the High Court’s ruling stands validated, setting a key precedent for refund eligibility of Compensation Cess ITC used in zero-rated exports.

Case Title: UOI vs. Patson Papers Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: SLP (C) Diary No. 49578/2025

Hashtags:

27/10/2025

🧾 Landmark Judgment Alert | MP High Court Clarifies GST Appeal Limitation Period 🏛️

In a crucial ruling in Laxmi Motors vs State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No. 35184/2025, decided on 15.10.2025), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified how to compute the limitation period for filing appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Court held that:

The date of the original order (26 July 2024) must be excluded when computing limitation, as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

The appeal period of three months under Section 107(1) is to be calculated month-to-month, not as 90 days.

With the additional one-month condonable period under Section 107(4), the appeal filed on 25 November 2024 was within time.

The Court relied on precedents including Dodds v. Walker (1981) and Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001), reaffirming that a “month” means a calendar month, not 30 days.

🔹 Verdict: The High Court set aside the Appellate Authority’s order and restored the appeal — a vital clarification for taxpayers and professionals alike.

20/10/2025