| Section 6 |
Vardhman Ispat Udhyog v. Adjudicating Authority cum Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division Dharamshala |
Where multiple authorities initiate proceedings on alleged fake ITC for the same subject matter, the authority issuing the initial show cause notice takes precedence to ensure single-stream adjudication without parallel inquiries. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 9 |
Surendera Dental College and Research Institute v. Rajasthan University of Health Science |
Demand of GST on affiliation fees paid by a college to a University was set aside, as the issue stands settled that GST cannot be imposed on affiliation fees. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 9 |
Er. Roland S. Fernandes v. Government of Karnataka |
A works contractor who incurred additional GST liability on a pre-GST State contract is legally entitled to reimbursement of the tax differential from the State as the recipient of service. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 11B |
Asish Kumar Pati v. Kairav Chemofarbe Industries Ltd. |
Where a refund order under Section 142(3) read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is passed, appeal lies before CESTAT and not GSTAT, making revenue’s appeal before GSTAT non-maintainable. |
Click Here |
Central Excise Act, 1944 |
| Rule 18(1) |
Sampark Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax |
Passing an ex parte order without issuing a fresh statutory notice or listing via judicial order violates Rule 18; weekly cause lists cannot substitute statutory notice requirements. |
Click Here |
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 |
| Section 29 |
Rajat Bansal v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) |
Retrospective cancellation of registration without recording reasons for such retrospectivity in the SCN or order is unsustainable and requires a fresh, reasoned determination. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 35L |
Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi East v. Samiah International Builder (P.) Ltd. |
Appeals regarding the taxability of a service determined by CESTAT lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L, making an appeal before the High Court non-maintainable under Section 35G. |
Click Here |
Central Excise Act, 1944 |
| Section 54 |
J K Cement Works v. Commissioner CGST |
Withholding release of a granted refund merely due to an unlisted departmental appeal filed belatedly is unjustified; release was directed subject to an undertaking to redeposit if revenue succeeds. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74A |
Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Baskar Selvakumar |
Issuing an SCN under Section 74 for FY 2024-25 instead of newly introduced Section 74A is merely a citation of a wrong provision and not a lack of jurisdiction; proceedings must continue under Section 74A. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 75 |
Aarya Metals v. State of Gujarat |
Issuing a cryptic, unreasoned two-line order for ITC recovery without addressing detailed replies or affording an opportunity for personal hearing violates principles of natural justice and is unsustainable. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 75 |
Aarya Metals v. State of Gujarat |
Failure to intimate the date, time, or venue for a personal hearing before passing an adverse recovery order constitutes a breach of statutory natural justice requirements, vitiating the order. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 |
Ratul Talukdar v. Union of India |
Where ownership of seized perishable goods is unestablished, the claimant cannot seek release as an owner, but compelling participation in an auction is unsustainable; release must be pursued via alternate statutory provisions. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 169 |
Gugal Electrical and Engg. Works v. State of Punjab |
Mere portal upload of SCN and Order-in-Original without acknowledgment does not constitute valid service under Section 169 read with Section 146 and does not trigger the limitation period for appeals. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
