| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 9 |
Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exports India (P.) Ltd., In re |
Click Here |
Frozen shrimp exported in printed inner pouches/boxes up to 25 kg qualifies as pre-packaged and labeled goods under Legal Metrology rules. No export exemption applies; supplies are liable to 5% GST. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 16 |
Surya Textile v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise |
Click Here |
Denial of an ITC claim solely as time-barred under Section 16(4) cannot be sustained if the claim falls within the period allowed under Section 16(5). Limitation-based disallowance was set aside. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 29 |
J.N. Lighting India LLP v. Union of India |
Click Here |
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration and rejection of revocation via non-speaking orders (without reasons or a hearing) violates natural justice. Orders quashed and remanded. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 29 |
Skva Rubber Solution (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India |
Click Here |
Cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns based on non-speaking SCNs/orders, without a personal hearing, is void ab initio for breaching natural justice. Orders quashed. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 54 |
Valmet Flow Control (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India |
Click Here |
In the absence of a statutory bar, a taxpayer can file a separate, timely refund application for an omitted invoice, even if it overlaps with a previously sanctioned refund period. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
M. Yasir Rahuman v. State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer |
Click Here |
An assessment order passed against a proprietorship concern after the death of its sole proprietor is a nullity as it is issued against a non-existent person. Revenue may proceed against legal heirs. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
Avik Televentures (P.) Ltd. v. Office of the GST Officer |
Click Here |
SLP dismissed against HC order quashing an OIO. Giving an exporter less than one working day to respond to complex audit findings makes the opportunity of hearing illusory. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
Ms. Riyan Enterprises v. State of Assam |
Click Here |
Issuing only a summary SCN in Form DRC-01 without a prior statutory SCN under Section 73(1) is an invalid substitution. The resultant demand order is unsustainable and quashed. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
Sameer P. Shiraguppi v. DCCT (AUDIT)-1, Belagavi |
Click Here |
Where an officer was authorized only to assign proceedings for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19, initiating proceedings for FY 2021-22 exceeded jurisdiction, rendering the SCN and OIO void. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
Shyam Electric v. Union of India |
Click Here |
Passing an ex parte order without granting an explicitly requested personal hearing, and offering only two adjournments when the statute permits three, violates natural justice. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 74 |
Mohd. Naseem Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh |
Click Here |
A writ petition is not maintainable when a taxpayer fails to respond to portal notices, files a statutory appeal without the mandatory pre-deposit, and misses the limitation deadlines. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 75 |
Lohlya Edible Oils (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh |
Click Here |
Framing assessments based on a standard yield benchmark without disclosing the source of that benchmark to the assessee violates natural justice. Orders were set aside. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 107 |
Mohd. Naseem Khan. v. State of Madhya Pradesh |
Click Here |
A writ petition cannot substitute the statutory appeal process where notices were duly published on the portal, no proof of non-delivery exists, and the pre-deposit was bypassed. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 112 |
Bimla Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax |
Click Here |
Writ jurisdiction was declined because the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is functional. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy before the tribunal with a pre-deposit. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 128A |
Sri Laxmi Borewell Agencies v. ACCT |
Click Here |
The application timeline under the interest/penalty waiver notification is directory, not mandatory (using the term ‘may’). Rejection solely due to a 3-month delay was held unlawful. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 129 |
Ranjeet Kumar Poddar v. AC of CGST & CX |
Click Here |
If transit goods are detained for invoice defects but the petitioner claims ownership and revenue has no contrary proof, release must be granted upon paying the statutory penalty under the owner clause. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 169 |
Nikhil Debnath v. Union of India |
Click Here |
Merely uploading an order on the GST portal without proof of physical delivery (like a postal Acknowledgement Due card for Speed Post) fails to establish statutory compliance for service. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Section 169 |
Mahesh Trivedi v. Union of India |
Click Here |
A legal challenge based purely on the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) lacks merit if the impugned order bears a valid RFN and was successfully served via portal, email, and registered post. |
