IMPORTANT GST CASW LAWS 28.09.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| GST Advisory | Editorial Note: GSTN enables invoice-wise reporting in Form GSTR-7 from September 2025 tax period: Advisory | The GSTN has enabled invoice-wise reporting in Form GSTR-7 for TDS deductors, as required by Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax. This functionality is effective from the September 2025 tax period. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 16 | Manoj Kumar Akhria v. Union of India | Where Input Tax Credit (ITC) was demanded for claims made from cancelled dealers, return defaulters, and tax non-payers, the Delhi High Court advised the assessee to avail of the appellate remedy, as the impugned order was appealable. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 | Sumit Saree Centre v. Commissioner of DGST | The Delhi High Court held that an order of retrospective cancellation of GST registration could not be sustained if the Show Cause Notice (SCN) did not propose it. The cancellation was to be effective only from the date of the SCN. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 | Smart World Communications v. Commissioner of Central Tax and CGST Delhi North Commissionerate | Following a similar principle, the Delhi High Court ruled that a cancellation order for non-filing of returns could not be given retrospective effect because the SCN did not mention retrospective cancellation. Cancellation was to take effect from the date of the SCN. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 47 | New Shivsakthi Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the imposition of a late fee for non-filing of an annual return. The court noted that even if a GSTR-3A notice wasn’t issued, the assessee would still be liable for the late fee as returns were not filed within the prescribed time. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | Baldev Metals (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax | The matter was remanded because the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order without granting a requested adjournment, thereby failing to provide the petitioner with a proper opportunity of hearing. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Sharp Tanks and Structurals (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals), Tirunelveli | The Madras High Court ruled that the period of limitation for filing an appeal must be calculated from the date of communication of the order to the assessee, not from the date of uploading the order on the GST portal. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 168A | Baldev Metals (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax | The Delhi High Court left open the validity of CBIC Notifications Nos. 56/2023 and 9/2023 (related to time limit extensions) as the issue was already under challenge before the Supreme Court, subject to the outcome of that decision. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 169 | Sekar Stores v. Deputy State Tax Officer-1 | Where an assessee’s registration was cancelled after a voluntary request, and the officer only used the GST portal to issue a notice to which no reply was received, the High Court remanded the matter. The officer should have explored other modes of service before passing the final order. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
For More:- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 26.09.2025