IMPORTANT GST TAX CASE LAW 15.10.2025
Here is the table containing the requested information for the provided Goods and Services Tax (GST) case laws:
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 9 | P.K. Joseph v. Union of India | A writ seeking to compel the GST Council to fix a date for the inclusion of petrol and diesel under GST was dismissed, as no legal right exists to mandate the Council on policy matters not subject to judicial enforceability. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 | Varidhi Cotspin (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | The time period from the date of filing a refund claim until the date of communication of a deficiency in Form GST RFD-03 must be excluded from the two-year limitation period for filing a fresh refund claim after rectifying the deficiency. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | OLA Fleet Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. State of Odisha | An ex parte assessment order was set aside because the taxpayer demonstrated non-receipt of statutory notices and a lack of upload/communication on the GST portal during assessment proceedings, thus violating the opportunity to respond. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | S J Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner | Composite show-cause notices and assessment orders covering multiple tax periods were set aside. The statutory scheme requires one notice/order per tax period, and composite orders prejudice the taxpayer’s appeal and remedy rights. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | Suhel Ahmed v. Union of India | Demand orders were unenforceable where the DRC-01 summary and tax determination bore only “Sd- Proper Officer” without electronic authentication (digital signature) and no properly signed show cause notice was issued, violating Rule 26(3) mandates. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | Suhel Ahmed v. Union of India | Demand orders passed were invalid because receiving only a summary in FORM GST DRC-01 cannot substitute for a proper show cause notice mandated by Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a), nor does it fulfill natural justice requirements. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 75 | Suhel Ahmed v. Union of India | An adverse order in DRC-07 was set aside because it was passed without affording a hearing (hearing particulars in DRC-01 were left blank) when the taxpayer did not reply to the DRC-01 summary, violating the statutory safeguard under Section 75(4). | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 | Nippon Tubes Ltd. v. State of UP | Detention of goods in transit was justified where the petitioner failed to provide the necessary delivery challan/e-way bill for movement to a job worker at the time of interception, as the goods were not accompanied by specified documents. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
For More : Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 14.10.25