IMPORTANT GST CASE LAW 26.11.25
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| 16 | Anjani Seeds and Fertilizers Depo v. State of Gujarat | Demand raised due to GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision because the adjudicating authority did not consider the petitioner’s reply to the Show Cause Notice and denied a proper hearing opportunity. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 17 | S.A. Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax | The order blocking the petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger was invalid because it was done without pre-decisional hearing and without furnishing independent reasons, failing to satisfy statutory prerequisites. Petitioner was entitled to unblocking. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 29 | M A Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Appeals1 | Cancellation of GST registration was justified where the petitioner could not prove a genuine place of business, supported by physical verification findings and forged/inconsistent rental documents. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 29 | Ram Ashish v. Union of India | An order of cancellation of registration could not be made retrospectively if the Show Cause Notice (SCN) did not propose retrospective effect. Since the assessee had filed an appeal, the appellate authority was directed to decide it by a specific date. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 73 | Habitus HR Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Multiple ex-parte adjudication orders passed against the assessee were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in the interest of justice, as effective opportunity was not afforded. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 75 | Walsons Services (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer | An ex parte demand order was set aside for breach of natural justice because non-filing of a reply and non-attendance was due to a consultant’s oversight and lack of portal access, meaning no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 79 | Sudhan VFX v. Superintendent | Recovery proceedings were held justified pending substantiated proof where a supplier unilaterally cancelled an invoice (reported in GSTR-1) but the contract did not fructify, and the cancellation was unsupported by corroborating evidence in annual books, though the matter was remitted for allowing a proper evidentiary reply. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 107 | Indrani Dhar v. State of West Bengal | An appellate order dismissing the appeal was set aside because it was a non-speaking two-page order that failed to provide reasons or address the grounds and evidence submitted by the petitioners, thus violating the mandate for reasoned adjudication. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 132 | Gaurav Babu Jain v. State of Haryana | Bail was granted under Article 21, despite the seriousness of the economic offence (operating bogus firms to issue fake invoices and pass on unlawful ITC), because the evidence was primarily documentary and digital, rendering prolonged custody unjustified. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 25.11.25