IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 25.11.25
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 9 | Gupta Feed Products (P.) Ltd., In re | The supply of cotton seed de-oiled cake (HSN 23061020) used as fish meal is exempt from GST from September 22, 2017, onwards, irrespective of its end use. Therefore, the question of charging 5% GST or claiming ITC does not arise for the exempt period. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 11 | Devendra K Patel, In re | Consultancy services provided to the State Government for building projects are exempt only if they are directly linked to the functions entrusted to a Panchayat (Eleventh Schedule) or Municipality (Twelfth Schedule), such as ITIs, schools, libraries, and public welfare buildings. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 | Stalwart India Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India | Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect is unsustainable when the Show Cause Notice (SCN) only stated the principal place of business was untraceable and did not propose retrospective cancellation. The cancellation order was set aside. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 | Gunnam Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Deposits made during search proceedings, prior to any quantification or adjudication, cannot be treated as self-ascertainment and are refundable. Deficiency memos raised merely for “non-appending of enclosures” were unwarranted as the applications were complete. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 | Century Products v. State of West Bengal | When an assessee challenges a refund rejection order in a writ petition, having already accepted the jurisdiction of the refund authority and no jurisdictional error being apparent, interference by the High Court in the writ is unjustified. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 | Mukesh Incense Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Union of India | Rejection of a refund application based on limitation under Rule 90(3) is unsustainable if binding High Court decisions impacting the limitation issue were not considered. The rejection and appellate orders required fresh adjudication. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 75 | Metallicz Media (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | An ex parte assessment order passed without providing an effective opportunity to the petitioner (due to non-receipt of notices by the CA and no personal hearing) is unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 79 | Bombay Art v. Union of India | Recovery proceedings (bank attachment) under Section 79 for unpaid self-assessed interest under Section 50(1) are invalid if conducted without issuing Form DRC-01D and providing a hearing as required by Rule 142B read with Rule 88C. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 24.11.2025