GST CASE LAW 04.07.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| West Bengal GST Act, 2017 | Classification / Rate Notification | Sage Organics (P.) Ltd., In re | Click Here |
1. Non-alcoholic beverage preps without fruit pulp/juice used as bases for dilution fall under HSN 2202 99 90 (Taxable @ 20% CGST + 20% SGST).
2. Iced tea preps, extracts, essences, and concentrates of tea fall under HSN 2101 20 (Taxable @ 2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST).
3. Syrups and beverage concentrates used as bases for dilution fall under HSN 2106 90 19 (Taxable @ 2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST). |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 16 (Input Tax Credit) | Intertek India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise | Click Here | ITC cannot be denied solely because foreign IT services were invoiced to one state unit while the consideration and RCM tax were discharged by another state unit via a valid self-invoice, provided all statutory conditions for ITC are met. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 16 (Input Tax Credit) | RHI Magnesita India Ltd., In re | Click Here |
1. ITC is ineligible on professional services used to raise funds that were invested as equity in a wholly owned subsidiary, as it lacks a direct nexus with the assessee’s own business.
2. ITC is admissible proportionately on QIP fundraising services used for repayment/pre-payment of borrowings, as it discharges liabilities and furthers the business. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 16 (Input Tax Credit) | South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise | Click Here | Section 16(3) only bars ITC if depreciation is claimed on the tax component. Where banking companies avail only 50% ITC on capital goods under Section 17(4), the remaining 50% lapses. Claiming depreciation on this lapsed portion does not lead to a double benefit and cannot be a ground to deny the availed 50% ITC. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 20 (Input Service Distributor) | Intertek India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise | Click Here | For the period July 2017 to March 2019 (unamended law), cross-charging service values and corresponding ITC from HO to other states without an ISD registration was permissible and legal. Consequently, penalty demands are unsustainable. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 50 (Interest on Delayed Tax) | Tvl. Noyyal Common Effluent Treatment Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | Click Here | Interest on delayed tax payment is statutory and absolute. If an assessee initially pays GST at a lower rate and pays the differential tax later upon departmental intimation, the liability to pay interest subsists irrespective of subsequent payments or requests for installments. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 54 (Refund of Tax) | Truth Fashion v. S.K Singh Special Commissioner | Click Here | Revenue cannot continue to withhold a refund allowed by an appellate authority if there is no active stay order granted by the Tribunal against the implementation of that appellate order. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 73 (Demands & Recovery – Non-Fraud) | NAV BSA Enterprises v. Enforcement Officer | Click Here | A single composite Show Cause Notice issued for multiple tax periods without allegations of fraud is legally unsustainable and must be quashed. The revenue has the liberty to issue separate notices for each period, excluding the time elapsed during litigation for limitation purposes. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 74 (Demands & Recovery – Fraud/Suppression) | Tvl. Noyyal Common Effluent Treatment Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | Click Here | Merely mentioning the extended period or utilizing DRC-01/DRC-07 does not automatically invalidate proceedings if differential tax was paid late. However, the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the petitioner’s reply based on their specific business nature. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 160 (Assessment Validity) | AMR Vision v. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax | Click Here | The complete absence of the Assessing Officer’s signature on Form GST DRC-07 violates the mandatory authentication requirements under the Rules. This invalidates the order completely, making any delay in filing a writ petition immaterial. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 169 (Service of Notice) | State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. | Click Here | Supreme Court Stay/Notice: While uploading SCNs/orders onto the Common Portal is a valid method of service, the effective date of ‘communication’ of their contents is subject to physical vs. electronic determination. Where both modes exist, the date of offline/physical communication may prevail over the portal upload date. |