IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 16.10.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 6 | Tansam Engineering and Construction Company v. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Rourkela | When State GST authorities initiate proceedings (issuing a DRC-01A or SCN) for wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 74, Central GST authorities are barred from taking parallel action (SCN, OIO, DRC-07s) for the identical subject-matter and period, as per Section 6(2)(b) (bar on parallel proceedings). The Central actions were quashed. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
| Section 16 | Shibaura Machine India (P.) Ltd., In re | ITC on a mobilisation advance invoice for a works contract must be availed within the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) (earlier of 30th November of the next financial year or annual return filing), and cannot be deferred beyond this limit, even if the advance is adjusted by running account (RA) bills in later years. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
| Section 17 | Shibaura Machine India (P.) Ltd., In re | For the construction of a new factory under a composite works contract (resulting in immovable property), ITC is only eligible on secondary steel structural supports exclusively for crane movement and HVAC, as they qualify as ‘plant and machinery’. No ITC is admissible on civil works, pre-engineered building (PEB), primary columns, or sheeting due to the blocked credit provision under Section 17(5). | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
| Section 69 | Sunil Hiralal Mandowara v. State of Gujarat | Bail was granted to an applicant arrested for wrongful availment of ITC through fictitious purchases after 8 months of custody, considering that the investigation was complete, the complaint was filed, and the applicant was not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
| Section 79 | Deputy Commissioner ST v. Wingtech Mobile Communications (India) (P.) Ltd. | The Supreme Court disposed of an SLP confirming a High Court order that the Competent Authority could revoke the provisional attachment of a bank account (made for recovery of an amount) subject to the assessee maintaining a minimum balance in the account and filing an undertaking for amounts refunded. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
| Section 107 | Movers International (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | A delay of 16 days in filing an appeal was condoned as the assessee had sufficient cause (awaiting an order on a rectification application), subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 5,000 to the GST department. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
| Section 129 | VRS Foods Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 | The action of detention and penalty was held lawful where goods were detained in transit because the truck driver carried no document despite a gate pass being issued. Production of documents after interception could not rectify the initial lapse, as the delivery challan must accompany the goods even for short-distance weighment. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
| Section 130 | Santosh Pigment and Chemical Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of UP | Initiation of proceedings for confiscation and penalty under Section 130/122 for excess stock found during a survey was impermissible if the excess was estimated only by eye estimation without actual weighment. In such a case, only assessment proceedings under Section 73 or 74 could be invoked, leading to the quashing of the confiscation and penalty orders. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST TAX CASE LAW 15.10.2025