IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 10.12.2025
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 29 (Cancellation of Registration) | M Y Ent Bhatta v. State of U.P. | Show cause notice (SCN) for cancellation of registration issued in a system-generated form without mentioning the name and office of the issuing authority was held to be not sustainable. | Click Here |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 73 (Demand – Non-Fraud Cases) | K.V. Joshy & C.K. Paul v. Assistant Commissioner | ITC disallowance against the purchaser because the supplier failed to remit the tax was held unsustainable under Section 73. The Department must first take action against the defaulting supplier and cannot proceed against the purchaser without evidence of collusion or prior notice. | Click Here |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 74 (Demand – Fraud Cases) / Section 161 (Rectification) | Kirti Agarwal v. Union of India | Where the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the assessee’s reply and evidence of voluntary tax deposit (DRC-03) and confirmed the demand, this was a breach of natural justice and an error apparent on the face of the record ($\text{S. 161}$). The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. | Click Here |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 75 (General Demand Provisions) | R.A.A. Builders and Developers v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax | The adjudication order enhanced the tax and penalty demand (to Rs 38.61 lakh) beyond the amount specified in the SCN (Rs 5.11 lakh). This contravened Section 75(7), which restricts the demand to the SCN figures, rendering the enhanced order unsustainable. | Click Here |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 107 (Appeals) | Multireach Media (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal | Delay in filing the appeal was condoned where the assessee had no knowledge of the adjudication order as it was only uploaded on the GST portal under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab. | Click Here |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 107 (Appeals) | Getronics Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals II) | Appellate Authority erred in denying adjustment of the $\text{Rs. 1.99}$ crore deposited under protest during investigation towards the statutory 10% pre-deposit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. | Click Here |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 107 (Appeals) | Getronics Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals II) | Payment of the required 10% pre-deposit by debiting the Electronic Credit Ledger was held to satisfy the statutory requirement for filing an appeal. | Click Here |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 129 (Detention of Goods) | Siddhi Vinayak Footwear v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Where goods in transit were accompanied by a tax invoice but not an e-way bill, the infringement was limited. The penalty must be determined under $\text{S. 129(1)(a)}$ (tax plus penalty) and not $\text{S. 129(1)(b)}$ (higher penalty for cases where tax is not paid). | Click Here |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 130 (Confiscation) | Prabhjot Singh v. Union of India | A writ petition for quashing a GST confiscation order on the ground of double jeopardy was not maintainable where the goods were later also confiscated by Customs. There is no legal bar to parallel proceedings under the CGST and Customs Acts, and the original GST order remained unchallenged. | Click Here |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 132 (Offences – Bail) | Sajjad Salimali Bhimani v. State of Gujarat | Regular bail was granted to the accused of GST offences since the investigation was complete, all allegations were documentary in nature, records had been seized, and the risk of absconding could be addressed by imposing conditions; hence, custodial detention was deemed unnecessary. | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAW 09.12.2025