IMPORTANT GST CASE LAW 22.11.2025
| Section / Rule | Case Law Title / Subject | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Rule 10A | GSTN Advisory on mandatory furnishing of bank account details | Taxpayers (other than TCS/TDS/suo-moto registrations) must furnish bank account details within 30 days of registration or before filing GSTR-1/IFF, whichever is earlier, to avoid suspension of their GST registration. | Editorial Note / Advisory | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) |
| Section 9 | JBM Ecolife Mobility Surat (P.) Ltd., In re | Liquidated damages paid by an applicant (SPV) to a concessionaire (SSL) for defaults in bus operations and maintenance are a genuine pre-estimated loss, not consideration for tolerating an act. Such amounts are not taxable under GST. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 9 | Coastal Foam (P.) Ltd., In re | Thermally bonded coir felt/sheets (used as padding) are classified as padded furnishings under HSN 9404 90 00, not as simple coir products, and thus attract GST at 12% (Schedule II, entry 223). | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 | Vipul Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. | Cancellation of GST registration without proper opportunity to be heard after a Show Cause Notice is invalid. The matter was quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication after a personal hearing. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 69 | Deepak Goyal v. Inspector (Anti-Evasion) CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana | Petitioner involved in fake invoicing and fraudulent ITC claims was granted bail after 3 months in custody, as further detention was not required since evidence was documentary/electronic with no scope for tampering. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | R. Muruganandam v. State Tax Officer (Inspection – II) | Where an assessee did not dispute the tax liability but challenged the invocation of Section 74 instead of the correct Section 73 (non-fraud/non-suppression demands), the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer | SCNs and orders invoking the extended limitation period under Section 74 were quashed because they did not allege or establish the mandatory elements of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 75 | Shree Balajee Traders v. Sales Tax Officer | The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication because the SCN and related documents were uploaded on the wrong tab (‘Additional Notices Tab’) on the GST portal, which resulted in the assessee not receiving a proper opportunity to be heard. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 168A | Shree Balajee Traders v. Sales Tax Officer | The challenge to CBIC Notifications (Nos. 9/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-CT) which extended the period of limitation for adjudication was noted to be subject to the outcome of the pending decisions before the Supreme Court and High Court. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST LAWS 21.11.2025