IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 25.02.2026
| Relevant Section | Case Law Title | Core Ruling & Strategic Summary | Citation |
| Section 16 | Malaya Rub-Tech Industries v. UOI | [Bona Fide Buyer] ITC cannot be denied to a buyer solely because the supplier failed to pay tax, unless the Revenue proves collusion, fraud, or non-bona fide intent on the buyer’s part. | Click Here |
| Section 169 | V.S. Muruganandam v. Deputy STO | [Ineffective Service] Serving notices only via portal is insufficient if the taxpayer doesn’t respond. Officers should explore alternative modes like RPAD (Post) to ensure natural justice before passing ex-parte orders. | Click Here |
| Section 107 / 112 | Ashirwad Food Industries v. UOI | [No Double Pre-deposit] If a taxpayer has already deposited the 10% pre-deposit at the First Appellate stage, no further pre-deposit is required to move the Tribunal (GSTAT) against that order. | Click Here |
| Section 29 | Bhagvan Singh v. Comm. of DGST | [Retrospective Ban] Registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively unless specific reasons for such backdating are recorded in both the SCN and the final order. | Click Here |
| Section 171 | DGAP v. Shrivision Towers | [Home Buyer ITC] Anti-profiteering benefits apply only to buyers who transitioned from pre-GST to post-GST. If a flat is booked entirely in the post-GST period, no “ITC benefit” is deemed to be passed on. | Click Here |
| Section 69 | Mukul Mittal v. RPO | [Passport Rights] Pendency of a GST prosecution is not an absolute bar to passport renewal. If the Trial Court grants permission, the Passport Office must renew the document. | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 24.02.2026