GST CASE LAWS 25.06.2026
| Relevant Act | Section / Rule | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| Gujarat GST Act, 2017 | Section N/A (Tariff Classification) | Sagar Aqua Culture (P.) Ltd., In re | Click Here | Paddle Wheel Aerators used in aquaculture ponds do not fall under agriculture machinery (Heading 8436). They are classified under the residual heading 8479 and taxed at 18%. |
| IGST Act, 2017 | Section 3 | Kay Arr Engineering Services v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise | Click Here | An OIO passed by an Assistant Commissioner on a DGGI-issued SCN was quashed for procedural irregularity, as Notification 02/2022-CT vests this adjudication power only in Additional or Joint Commissioners. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 9 | Shri Ramanujam Tulsi Ramadas, In re | Click Here | Valuation for the sale of second-hand motor vehicles purchased from unregistered persons (after minor repairs) is governed by Margin Scheme Rule 32(5) read with Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate). |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 11 | Vaibhavi Dredging, In re | Click Here | The AAAR declined to rule on the merits of a dredging exemption because a Section 73 order confirming the GST demand had already been passed for the same transaction, leaving the issue open for statutory appeals. |
| Kerala VAT Act, 2003 | Section 25 | Jyothy Labs Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (WC AND LT) | Click Here | A reassessment notice based on an audit objection issued beyond the limitation period was quashed. Section 25A does not override the absolute five-year cap prescribed under Section 25(1). |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 29 | Treasure Realtors (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | Click Here | Registration cancelled due to a COVID-proximate return filing default was ordered to be restored upon payment of outstanding dues, given the lack of fraudulent intent and financial constraints. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 74 | Tvl. Technocast Foundry v. State Tax Officer | Click Here | Failure to maintain job-work records or file Form ITC-04 resulted in the movement being treated as a deemed supply. Invocation of the extended period was upheld as the GST threshold for it is lower. |
| CGST Rules, 2017 | Rule 86A | Mohan Milkfoods (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner (Corporate-2) | Click Here | An ITC blocking order under Rule 86A was set aside because the authority failed to record the mandatory written “reasons to believe” in the order, rendering the exercise jurisdictionally deficient. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 107 | Ravi Kunchepu v. State Tax Officer (FAC) | Click Here | Writ jurisdiction was denied since a statutory remedy exists under Section 107. Liberty was granted to file an appeal with delay condonation and pre-deposit where the taxpayer claimed late knowledge via the portal. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 107 | Mahesh Value Products (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST | Click Here | Rejection of an appeal as time-barred was held unsustainable and remanded because the Appellate Authority incorrectly computed the limitation period despite it being filed within the condonable window. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 143 | Tvl. Technocast Foundry v. State Tax Officer | Click Here | Matter remanded to verify revenue neutrality regarding job-work transfers to a sister concern without proper records. The onus remains on the petitioner to prove tax payment by principal/worker. |