IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 18.11.2025

Section / Rule	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 9	Mala Sahni Seth v. Delhi Development Authority	*GST was prima facie* not leviable on DDA’s retrospective demand for conversion charges (for freehold conversion of leasehold property), as these charges were considered part of the sale consideration for immovable property**.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16 (IGST Act)	Gameloft Software (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax	Where the assessee filed a revised refund application for excess IGST paid (Zero-Rated Supply) and no deficiency memo was issued within the statutory timeline, the department was directed to dispose of the refund application expeditiously within one month.	Click Here	Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16 (CGST Act)	Priya Holdings (P.) Ltd., In re	Input Tax Credit (ITC) is admissible on imported goods even if payment to the overseas supplier is deferred beyond 180 days (within FEMA/RBI limits). Since tax is paid to the Government via Customs, the 180-day payment condition for ITC reversal does not apply to imports.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 17	Zydus Lifesciences Ltd., In re	Mutual fund transactions are classified as securities and included in the value of exempt supply under section 17(3). Therefore, a pharmaceutical manufacturer must reverse common ITC attributable to mutual fund investment/redemption activities as mandated by section 17(2) and Rule 42.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73 (Case 1)	ACME India v. Dept of Trade and Taxes ( Delhi GST)	Where the assessee failed to avail the personal hearing despite reminders, the High Court refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction and directed the assessee to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under section 107 against the demand order.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73 (Case 2)	C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST-Delhi-South	Failure to comply with the statutory requirement of serving the Show Cause Notice (SCN) within the three-month window and serving it on an outdated address rendered the SCN and consequential demand orders invalid and liable to be quashed.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73 (Case 3)	Sankar Agarwala v. Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise(Appeal)	Ex-parte adverse order was set aside because the SCN contemplating adverse action was uploaded only under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab and not the normal tab. This mode of e-service was held not to be due communication under law.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 75 (Case 1)	Agarwal Aromas (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	The taxpayer challenged the GST portal’s design that allowed scheduling a personal hearing before the expiry of the reply deadline. GSTN confirmed it would implement technical measures to ensure hearing dates are only fixed after the last date for filing a reply.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 75 (Case 2)	Raj Udyog v. Goods and Service Tax Officer, Department of Trade and Taxes, Govt. of NCT of Delhi	SCN and reminders uploaded only under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab and denial of personal hearing resulted in the order being set aside. The petitioner was deprived of a proper opportunity to be heard and the matter was remanded for a fresh reply and hearing.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Rule 86A	Pilcon Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of U.P.	The blocking of ITC in the electronic credit ledger was held to be without jurisdiction because it was based on a generic DGGI alert and a ledger remark, without any adjudication order, specific material linking the petitioner, or recording the ‘reason to believe’ in writing as mandated by the Rule.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
Section 107 (Case 1)	GAEA Engineers and Contractors (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise	Where the Appellate Authority initially accepted a manual appeal and issued a hearing notice, subsequent rejection of the appeal for non-compliance on pre-deposit (when proof was later produced) was unjustified, as the prior actions indicated an intent to proceed on merits.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 107 (Case 2)	Agarwal Aromas (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	A taxpayer who deposited the disputed tax but maintained objections was prevented by the GST portal from e-filing an appeal due to the auto-populated ‘Nil’ demand. The court held that procedural technicalities cannot curtail the statutory right of appeal, allowing the petitioner to file a physical appeal to be decided on merits.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 168A	ACME India v. Dept of Trade and Taxes ( Delhi GST)	The validity of CBIC Notification Nos. 56/2023 and 9/2023, which extended the time limit for certain actions, was left open as the matter was already under challenge before the Supreme Court.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 171	DGAP v. Shree Suktam Enterprise	Anti-profiteering proceedings were dropped because, despite repeated efforts, the respondent could not be traced, records were unavailable, and product-wise supply data was inaccessible. In the absence of requisite evidence, no profiteering could be established.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 17.11.2025