IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 06.11.25

SECTION/RULE	CASE LAW TITLE	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 9	Link up Textiles (P.) Ltd., In re	Made-to-order men’s pyjama sets (woven tops/bottoms, predominantly cotton) for export are classified as men’s nightwear under HSN 620721.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 9	Link up Textiles (P.) Ltd., In re	For exported pyjama sets packed two per pack (pack value > Rs 1,000, set value < Rs 1,000), GST is 5% as the rate is determined per piece (set), and each set’s value is below the Rs 1,000 threshold.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 73	Zakir Hussain v. Union of India	Non-consideration of a reply to an SCN filed after the stipulated time but before adjudication is a breach of natural justice, vitiating the order and requiring fresh consideration.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 73	Eeya Metals and Alloys (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner ST	A writ petition challenging an SCN (alleging ineligible ITC) at the pre-adjudication stage was declined, as the petitioner had an adequate opportunity to object before the adjudicating authority.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 74	Singhal Iron Traders v. Additional Commissioner	ITC reversal and penalty were unsustainable for purchases backed by e-way bills and bank payments, even if the supplier’s registration was later cancelled, as authorities failed to verify the supplier’s existence at the time of the transaction.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 74	A.S. Met Corp. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner ST FAC	A plea of violation of natural justice failed because the assessee was given extensive documents and multiple hearing opportunities but did not submit responses.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 75	Uday Glass House v. State of Uttar Pradesh	Mandatory safeguards of natural justice were breached when an order was issued without granting a personal hearing (despite a reply being filed) or passing a reasoned order.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 75	Eeya Metals and Alloys (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner ST	Denying an assessee access to underlying facts and evidence (used in an SCN) on grounds of confidentiality violates natural justice, as all material must be provided for rebuttal.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Rule 86A	Eeya Metals and Alloys (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner ST	A credit ledger blocked pending investigation was not immediately unblocked, but expedited adjudication with strict timelines was ordered, with failure to comply resulting in automatic removal of the block.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES, 2017
Section 107	Mrs.T. Porkodi v. Deputy Commissioner (CT)	A 288-day delay in filing an appeal (due to hospitalization) was condoned subject to an additional 5% deposit, as the assessment order was only uploaded to the portal without a hearing.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 107	Rajesh Metals v. Commissioner CGST Delhi North	A possible breach of natural justice (non-consideration of a detailed reply) warranted relegation to a statutory appeal rather than a writ remedy, despite non-attendance at the personal hearing.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 107	A.S. Met Corp. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner ST FAC	A writ petition was dismissed as grounds were absent where the department provided all materials and multiple hearing opportunities, but the petitioner failed to respond; a statutory appeal remedy existed.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 132	Mukesh Kumar v. Additional Assistant Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence	Bail was declined for a petitioner arrested for managing dummy firms that passed ineligible ITC (Rs 19.76 crores), considering the gravity of the offence and ongoing investigation.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 161	Rajkishor Pati v. Union of India	A works contractor was permitted to rectify a clerical error (entering TDS GSTIN instead of regular GSTIN) as it caused no revenue loss or double benefit.	Click Here	CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017

Click Here :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAW 04.11.2025