IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 13.11.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| 16 | Alleima India (P.) Ltd., In re | Applicant is eligible to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on capital goods and related services used for laying down cables from a substation to the factory premises, even though the assets were installed outside the factory, as they are part of the expanded industrial plant. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 17 | Assistant Commissioner, CGST Excise v. Elixir Industries (P.) Ltd. | ITC on GST paid for wires, cables, and electrical equipment used for installing a 66 KV feeder bay and underground cable to the factory was held to be eligible. The materials were used for electricity transmission and did not constitute construction of immovable property, even if subsequently handed over to the utility. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 29 | Divisional Forest Officer v. Union of India | When a GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, the officer is empowered under the proviso to Rule 22(4) to drop the cancellation proceedings and restore the registration once the petitioner files all pending returns and pays the tax, interest, and late fee. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 50 | A.S.R Constructions v. State Tax Officer | Interest on delayed payment of outward tax, disclosed in GSTR-09, must be computed only from the statutory due date for GSTR-3B (under Section 39) up to the actual date of debit in the electronic ledger when the tax was paid. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 73 | Cosmopolitan Solar Energizer v. State of West Bengal | A demand order was set aside and a final opportunity granted to the assessee to respond, as the Show Cause Notice (SCN) contained contradictory dates for the hearing and reply, causing confusion and resulting in no effective representation (breach of natural justice). | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 73, 168A | Oasys Cybernetics (P). Ltd v. State Tax Officer | The COVID-19 limitation exclusion period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022), directed by the Supreme Court for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings under any law, is applicable to demand proceedings under GST as well. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 73 | Ms K.b. Patrikar v. Union of India | The assessee’s objection regarding the non-observance of pre-consultation (for an SCN issued for an extended period) was not entertained in a subsequent writ petition, as the objection was not raised in the initial SCN reply or the first writ, constituting a conscious waiver. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 74 | High Spirit Commercial Ventures (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate | The High Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy with the requisite pre-deposit, as the challenge to the SCN and order (alleging fraudulent ITC availment from non-existent entities) involved contested factual findings based on extensive investigation and statements. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 75 | Ms K.b. Patrikar v. Union of India | A challenge against the order-in-original (OIO) denying exemption was dismissed in a writ petition, as the petitioner had participated in the adjudication, the representations were considered, and the statutory appeal remedy was efficacious, making the challenge on the grounds of natural justice unsustainable. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 161 | Aries Interior v. State Tax Officer | The rejection of a rectification application was set aside because the authority merely reproduced the statutory provision without granting a personal hearing or determining if an error apparent existed, thus contravening the principles of natural justice. A de novo proceeding was directed. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 168A 73 | Dj Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Coimbatore | The matter was remanded for fresh orders in view of the Madras High Court’s ruling in Tata Play Ltd., which concerned the applicability of the COVID-19 exclusion period under Section 168A, dismissing the assessee’s contention that the demand proceeding was without jurisdiction. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 12.11.2025