IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 02.12.2025
| Section/Bill | Case Law Title / Editorial Note | Brief Summary | Citation / Act |
| Health Security SE National Security Cess Bill, 2025 | Editorial Note on Health Security SE National Security Cess Bill, 2025 | Proposed to levy a new cess on the manufacture or production of specified goods, namely pan masala, to increase resources for meeting expenditure on national security and public health. | Click Here |
| Section 73 (CGST Act) | Bird Delhi General Aviation Services (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer II Avato | Order was set aside and the matter was remanded as the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 as cost. | Click Here |
| Section 73 (CGST Act) | Concept Eateries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Matter was remanded because the show cause notice (SCN) was not checked by the petitioner’s CA, resulting in the petitioner not getting a proper hearing opportunity. | Click Here |
| Section 75 (CGST Act) | Jai Durga Security Force v. Finance Department | The order was rendered invalid and proceedings were restored for lawful adjudication because the SCN did not specify the date, time, or venue for the personal hearing, which is a statutory requirement. | Click Here |
| Section 75 (CGST Act) | Aviraj Udyog v. Union of India | Order was set aside and the matter was re-adjudicated because the SCN was uploaded on the GST portal under the wrong tab (‘Additional Notices’), leading to the petitioner not receiving a proper opportunity to be heard. | Click Here |
| Section 107 (CGST Act) | Global Tech Fab v. Government of NCT Delhi | Assessee, who had already deposited an amount exceeding the required pre-deposit for appeal, was permitted to file the appeal without any further pre-deposit, and the order of provisional attachment of the bank account was set aside. | Click Here |
| Section 130 (CGST Act) | Vidyarthi Dresses v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Confiscation under Section 130 was not permissible when authorities invoked it solely on the basis of excess or unaccounted stock found during a survey, as the Act provides specific provisions (Sections 73/74 read with Section 35(6)) for the assessment and tax determination of such goods. | Click Here |
| Section 132 (CGST Act) | Siddhant Rana v. Union of India | Applicant accused of GST evasion (Rs. 35 crore) was granted bail because he was in custody, had no prior criminal history, the investigation was concluded, and the offences were triable by a Magistrate with evidence being only documentary/electronic. | Click Here |
| Section 168A (CGST Act) | Concept Eateries (P.) Ltd. / Global Tech Fab / Bird Delhi General Aviation Services (P.) Ltd. / Aviraj Udyog (Multiple Cases) | Validity of CBIC Notification Nos. 56/2023-CT and 9/2023-CT, which extended the period of limitation for adjudication, was left open and made subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court, where the validity of these notifications is already under challenge. | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 01.12.25