GST CASE LAW DIGEST 04.06.2026
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 107 | Prime Metals vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs | A writ petition challenging an adjudication order and SCN regarding ITC disputes and cross-examination denial is not maintainable if an alternative statutory appeal route is fully available. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 / Section 107 | Bhupender Kumar vs. Commissioner, GST | The mere omission of specific interest rates, quantified interest, and penalty figures inside a Show Cause Notice does not invalidate it; the appropriate remedy is to agitate the issue in a statutory appeal. | NO | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 30 | Mohit Singh vs. Union of India | Rejecting a registration revocation application without waiting for the reply period to expire or offering a meaningful personal hearing violates natural justice, making the order arbitrary and illegal. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 / Section 107 | Bal Krishna Sunar vs. Superintendent, Rangpo 1 Range Gangtok Division, CGST & Central Excise (GST), Siliguri Commissionerate | A writ court will entertain and order the restoration of a cancelled GST registration post-limitation if curable procedural lapses completely halted business operations and severely impacted livelihoods. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 / Section 73 | PEI Industries vs. Union of India | The financial burden of a mandatory statutory pre-deposit does not justify bypassing the alternative appellate remedy. Furthermore, state and central proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 operate independently. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 | Tex Fab India vs. Union of India | An order cancelling a taxpayer’s GST registration without stating explicit reasons or following standard procedural rules is a non-speaking order, unsustainable in law, and must be remanded back. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 67 / Section 73 | Bengal Cold Rollers (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | Where the department loses original seized documents but supplies scanned copies, the final adjudication can only safely proceed based on the remaining available materials while ensuring a fair right to reply. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 16 | Poothankara Anoopkumar vs. Superintendent | Denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) solely based on Section 16(4) time bars is invalid if the returns were filed within the extended and relaxed cut-off windows provided under Section 16(5). | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 / Section 160 | Sai Auto Mobiles vs. Commissioner Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise | Confirming a demand without supplying copies of the Relied Upon Documents (RUDs), despite explicit applications by the assessee, impairs the right to reply, violates natural justice, and vitiates the entire order. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |