IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 27.10.2025

By | October 28, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 27.10.2025

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 6Ravi Steel Industries v. Union of IndiaWhere State authorities had already issued orders/appeals pending for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19, and the Central authority issued parallel Show Cause Notices (SCNs) for the same periods, the Central authority was directed to consider the State orders/appeals as per judicial precedent (Armour Security). No quashing of Central notices, as they covered a broader period.Click HereCentral Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)
Section 6Ravi Steel Industries v. Union of IndiaCentral SCNs denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) for periods not covered by prior State GST proceedings were held valid. The jurisdictional bar under Section 6(2)(b) (precluding parallel action) did not extend to subsequent years or periods not adjudicated by the State.Click HereCGST Act
Section 9Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. State of KeralaChallenging the 12% GST imposed on flavoured milk, the assessment orders were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for fresh determination, considering previous High Court and Supreme Court rulings that supported the 5% GST rate.Click HereCGST Act
Section 16Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi SouthSpecial Leave Petition (SLP is dismissed) against the High Court order holding that a writ petition is not maintainable in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC.Click HereCGST Act
Section 73Zahid Scrap Traders v. State of Uttar PradeshAn order passed under Section 73 was quashed because the underlying Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on the GST portal after the cancellation of registration, constituting a violation of natural justice.Click HereCGST Act
Section 75Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi SouthSLP dismissed against the High Court order. The mere plea that an opportunity for three hearings was not given was not accepted, as the petitioner had admittedly attended one of the hearings.Click HereCGST Act
Section 75Sai Computers v. State of U.P.A confirmed demand of Rs 1.55 lakh was held unsustainable and the matter was remanded, as the original Show Cause Notice had only proposed a demand of Rs 20.9 thousand. This was contrary to Section 75(7) (demand cannot exceed the amount specified in the SCN).Click HereCGST Act
Section 83R.B. Drillers And Construction v. State of ChhattisgarhThe provisional attachment of a contractor’s bank account and due payments was held unsustainable because the notice of attachment did not state the statutory provision or record the reasons/opinion as required by law.Click HereCGST Act
Section 107Acme India v. Union of India, Department of RevenueWhere an order was passed alleging ineligible ITC claims (fake invoices) without granting an adjournment/personal hearing, and the order was uploaded in an illegible format, the petitioner was allowed to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107, despite the writ remedy being declined.Click HereCGST Act
Section 107Acme India v. Union of India, Department of RevenueDue to the violation of natural justice (no proper hearing, illegible order), the petitioner was allowed to file an appeal under Section 107 even after the expiry of the limitation period. The pre-deposited amount was to be adjusted, and the appeal heard on merits.Click HereCGST Act

For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 16.10.2025