GST CASE LAW DIGEST 06.06.2026
GST CASE LAW DIGEST 06.06.2026
| Relevant Act | Section / Rule | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 69 / Section 132 | Directorate General of GST Intelligence vs. Girish Sachdeva | Click Here | The High Court upheld that requiring a 7-day prior notice before making an arrest for circular trading and bogus ITC satisfies natural justice, rejecting the department’s push for a blanket restraint on such notices. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 73 / Limitation | Santosh Supplies vs. Union of India | Click Here | Issuing a single, composite Show Cause Notice (SCN) and order for multiple financial years in non-fraud cases is invalid. SCNs must be issued year-wise to respect individual period limitations and allow clear, period-specific rebuttals. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 16 / Section 74 | MNS Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise | Click Here | Denial of cross-examination in a fraudulent ITC adjudication does not automatically invalidate the order. Since the allegations of fake ITC can be countered using documentary evidence, the petitioner should approach the regular statutory appellate remedy. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Rule 10A / Natural Justice | Huma Power & Tower (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Assam | Click Here | An ex parte cancellation of GST registration executed before the 30-day window expired from the date of the SCN (which alleged a Rule 10A breach) was quashed for violating statutory procedure and natural justice rules. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Rule 22(4) | MD. Nekib Hussain vs. Union of India | Click Here | Following the Dhirghat Hardware precedent, registration cancelled due to a 6-month non-filing of returns was allowed to be restored on the condition that the petitioner files all pending returns and clears all dues (tax, interest, penalty, and late fees). |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 125 vs. Section 47 | NKR Traders vs. State Tax Officer | Click Here | Levying a general penalty alongside a specific late fee for delayed returns is unsustainable. Liability is strictly restricted to the late fee alone, and bank attachments must be lifted once the late fee is deposited. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 54 vs. Section 73/74 | AWL Agri Business vs. State of Odisha | Click Here | The Department cannot directly use demand provisions to nullify a previously sanctioned refund order. Following Board Instruction No. 03/2022-GST, the department must use the appellate review mechanism, justifying interim protection for the taxpayer. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 73 / Limitation | Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Additional Director | Click Here | Reaffirming established precedents, a consolidated SCN covering six separate financial years for tax/ITC demands (without fraud elements) is unsustainable and was quashed; the Revenue must issue individual notices for each year. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 107 | Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh | Click Here | For calculating the appeal limitation period, the date of communication declared by the assessee must be presumed correct unless the Revenue provides clear evidence proving an earlier physical or digital service date. |