Important GST Case Laws 24.04.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec 2 & 13 | Liberty Square Apartment Owners Association, In re | Click Here | Corpus Funds collected by RWAs for future contingencies are “advances” for future supply, not deposits. GST is payable at the time of collection. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec 7 & 9 | Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re | Click Here | Liquidated Damages for contract breach lack a “supply” nexus and are not taxable. However, Arbitration Fees paid are taxable under RCM. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec 54 | Lubrizol Advance Materials India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Click Here | Rejection of Export Refund on “intermediary” grounds was quashed; remanded for fresh examination of principal-to-principal agreements. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec 73 | Rollmet LLP v. Union of India | Click Here | Whether issuing consolidated show-cause notices for multiple financial years is legally permissible has been referred to a Larger Bench. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec 74 | Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST | Click Here | Writ against demand orders involving fraud was dismissed; the Court directed the petitioner to use the “efficacious remedy” of statutory appeal u/s 107. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec 112 | Maa Shakambari Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner | Click Here | Since the Tribunal is not yet functional, recovery is stayed if the petitioner files an undertaking and makes the required pre-deposit within 15 days. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec 130 | Nitin Hiralal Jain v. State Tax Officer | Click Here | Writ against confiscation dismissed where the petitioner’s locus over the goods was doubtful (lack of local registration and no effort by others to claim goods). |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec 142 | Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re | Click Here | Arbitration Awards for price revisions in pre-GST contracts are “deemed taxable supplies” under GST, requiring supplementary invoices at 18% tax. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec 169 | Maya Store v. Union of India | Click Here | An adjudication order passed without proof of service of a hearing notice is mandatory to set aside due to violation of natural justice. |
For More :- Read Important GST Case Laws 23.04.2026