IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 19.11.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 29 | Pixel Trading & Services v. Superintendent, Central Tax and Central Excise | Registration was restored by court’s extra-ordinary jurisdiction after being mistakenly canceled by the consultant (instead of a sister concern’s). | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 29 | Gayathri Infra Developers v. Deputy State Tax Officer | Retrospective cancellation for not furnishing bank details, based on a vague SCN with no effective notice, was deemed disproportionate and restoration was permitted. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 30 | Dhirghat Hardware Stores v. Union of India | Petitioner whose registration was canceled for non-filing of returns for six months was granted two months to approach the authority for restoration by furnishing all pending returns and making full payment (tax, interest, late fee). | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 67 | Stores Cement v. State of West Bengal | A belated writ challenge to an earlier inspection (citing absence of ‘reasons to believe’) was not entertained by the court, especially when an appellate remedy was available and the limitation period had passed. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 73 | Prolay Dey Sarkar v. State of Assam | Adjudication order passed after only a summary SCN (Form GST DRC-01) and without a formal statutory SCN was held unsustainable in law and set aside, as the procedure did not meet statutory requirements. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 74 | Purshottam Ray v. Principal Commissioner of CGST | Petitioner, part of multiple entities receiving a common SCN for alleged bogus invoicing, was permitted to file a statutory appeal, accepting that knowledge of the SCN came belatedly, despite registration cancellation. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 74 | Metal N Strips v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (APPEALS – 3) | Penalty imposed exceeding the amount determined and proposed in the SCN was held illegal and arbitrary, as penalty cannot exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 75 | Prestige Nottinghill Investments v. Union of India | Demand for tax, interest, and penalty shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice, and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 79 | Subir Ghosh v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) | Attachment of a former director’s personal bank account for company GST dues requires prior adjudication of the director’s liability; the bank notice was treated as an SCN, and attachment was lifted pending adjudication. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 83 | Heavy Steel Industry v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes | A second provisional attachment order immediately after the expiry of the first was held illegal and without jurisdiction, as Section 83(2) mandates cessation after one year and does not permit a fresh attachment on the same grounds. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 83 | Ebix Technologies Ltd. v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence | Freezing of a software company’s bank accounts (linked as a witness) for alleged fraudulent ITC, without an opportunity to respond to summons, was found to violate natural justice and could not continue. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 107 | Stores Cement v. State of West Bengal | Writ remedy was not entertained against an Order-in-Original where the petitioner participated without objecting to the non-supply of relied-upon documents, as a statutory appeal was available and the challenge was belated. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 107 | Stores Cement v. State of West Bengal | Petitioner, having been denied writ relief, was permitted to file a statutory appeal against the O-in-O within 30 days, acknowledging the delay was due to the writ pendency, provided the mandatory pre-deposit was made. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 129 | Deepam Packaging and Food (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade -2 | Detention of goods for alleged reuse of an e-way bill/tax invoice was quashed as no proper investigation or verification (return trip, breakdown claim, dealer verification) was undertaken to support the allegation. | Click Here | The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 18.11.2025