GST CASE LAWS 17.08.2026
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Rule 28(2) / Section 15(4) | In re: Validity of Rule 28(2) & Corporate Guarantee Levy | Rule 28(2) and Section 15(4) were upheld as constitutionally valid after reading down the phrase “whichever is higher”; however, retrospective GST levy on corporate guarantees furnished prior to 26-10-2023 was struck down as unconstitutional and held applicable only prospectively. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 / CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 11 | Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India | Insolvency and receivership services rendered by an Advocate appointed as an Insolvency Professional do not qualify as legal services under RCM; such services are taxable under forward charge, requiring GST registration and tax invoices. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 16 | Rakesh Krishnan v. Deputy State Tax Officer | Denial of ITC for February and March 2020 solely citing limitation under Section 16(4) is unsustainable when the returns were filed within the statutory cut-off period under Section 16(5). | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 25 | Nayan Jitendra Shah v. Superintendent | Rejection of GST registration application was justified where the applicant failed to prove lawful tenancy of the premises or provide authorization from co-lessees; liberty granted to reapply with valid documentation. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 69 | Union of India v. Sunil Biyani | High Courts or Sessions Courts cannot grant interim protection from arrest while simultaneously dismissing a petition seeking pre-arrest/anticipatory bail. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | S.S. Infrazone (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. | Show cause notice invoking the extended limitation period was quashed because the department failed to substantiate the mandatory jurisdictional ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 83 | Zubair Enterprises v. Commissioner CGST and Central Excise | Provisional attachment of bank accounts lapses automatically by operation of law after one year; authorities and banks must de-freeze accounts upon expiry unless a fresh valid order is passed. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 112 | Ajit Kumar Pati v. Pr. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise | Writ petition is not maintainable when the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has been made functional with extended timelines; assessee must pursue the statutory appeal along with the mandatory pre-deposit. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 132 | Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) v. Union of India | A PIL filed by a private businessman seeking tax evasion investigations against competitors was dismissed for lack of genuine public interest, resulting in forfeiture of the security deposit. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 140 | Shakti Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax | Mandatory pre-deposit for filing an appeal can be legally discharged using valid transitioned CENVAT credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger; administrative instructions cannot override statutory credit rights. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 169 | DOT Truckers Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Faridabad (West) Ward 5 Faridabad | Service of a Show Cause Notice or Order-in-Original solely by uploading it onto the GST portal without separate communication or acknowledgment is legally insufficient service. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |