GST CASE LAW DIGEST 16.06.2026
GST CASE LAW DIGEST16.06.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 7 | Cremeux Bakeries (P.) Ltd., In re | Factory-made bakery items sold at outlets without further cooking/preparation, using a single price list and no service component, are classified as a “supply of goods” under HSN classification rates. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 7 | Cremeux Bakeries (P.) Ltd., In re | Outlets blending or preparing items like pizzas, pastas, or shakes upon customer order fall under “restaurant services” (whether for dine-in or takeaway) regardless of the outlet model. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 9 | A.V. Cargo Migrators LLP, In re | An online platform facilitating bookings between vehicle owners/drivers and customers for a commission qualifies as an Electronic Commerce Operator (ECO), not a Goods Transport Agency (GTA). |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 17 | Agratas Energy Storage Solutions (P.) Ltd., In re | ITC on GST paid for industrial land leased from the government for factory renovation, repair, or maintenance is blocked under the statutory explanation to Section 17(5). |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 17 | Agratas Energy Storage Solutions (P.) Ltd., In re | The embargo on ITC under Section 17 applies to the entire leased industrial plot, including portions reserved for statutory green-belts and vacant areas required by environmental norms. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 17 | Agratas Energy Storage Solutions (P.) Ltd., In re | The restriction on ITC for lease rentals on land taken for constructing immovable property is absolute under reverse charge, regardless of whether payments are made before or after construction. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 17 | Agratas Energy Storage Solutions (P.) Ltd., In re | ITC on government lease rentals paid under RCM for factory construction remains blocked as it falls under the restriction for inputs/services used for the construction of immovable property. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 17 | Polycab India Ltd., In re | A reinforced concrete VCV tower constructed exclusively as a structural support foundation for manufacturing qualifies as “plant and machinery,” making ITC on its inputs/input services admissible. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 35 | Cremeux Bakeries (P.) Ltd., In re | Outlets selling both ready-made goods and prepared food from the same premises can bill them as goods and services separately, provided distinct invoice series are kept and ITC is reversed appropriately. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 52 | A.V. Cargo Migrators LLP, In re | A transport booking e-commerce operator cannot claim pure-agent exemption on its commission; it is liable to pay GST on its commission and must collect TCS on the net value of bookings. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 54 | Kanika Exports v. Union of India | The “relevant date” for claiming refunds on unutilized ITC from zero-rated exports is the due date of filing returns under Explanation 2(e). Amendments limiting this cannot operate retrospectively to deny vested rights. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 97 | M. C. Prasanth, In re | An advance ruling application filed by a professional on hypothetical or prospective RCM scenarios is inadmissible as it lacks a statutory nexus with a transaction actually undertaken or proposed by the applicant. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 171 | DG Anti Profiteering v. Nandi Infratech (P.) Ltd. | A claim seeking interest on monies retained after a default cancellation falls outside the anti-profiteering jurisdiction as it does not relate to the non-passing of commensurate ITC benefits. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 171 | DG Anti Profiteering v. Nandi Infratech (P.) Ltd. | Where pre-GST allottees were denied additional ITC transition benefits, the developer is liable to return the profiteered amount along with 18% interest once the DGAP computation is established. |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 171 | DG Anti Profiteering v. Siddha Infradev LLP | A developer who fails to pass on additional ITC benefits to homebuyers via price reductions is liable to refund the profiteered amount with 18% interest and faces penalties under Section 171(3A). |
2026
|
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 171 | DG Anti Profiteering v. MRF Corporation (P.) Ltd | A DGAP profiteering report is unacceptable and requires fresh investigation if it fails to evaluate the respondent’s evidence regarding external market forces and rising raw material costs post-rate cuts. |
2026
|