GST CASE LAWS 09.09.2026
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 25 | Neha v. Union of India | Where writ petitions sought directions to authorities to curb rampant fake GST registrations using PAN and [Aadhaar Redacted], and respondents had failed for nearly nine years to effectively address issue, with even deputed police officials unaware of problem, respondents were given a final opportunity to propose and implement an effective solution, failing which further appropriate orders would be passed. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 | Tvl. Dd 654 DGL Govt Medical College Staffs and Students Cooperative Store Ltd. v. Superintendent | Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled and petitioner sought restoration upon compliance, cancellation was set aside and GST registration was directed to be restored subject to fulfillment of statutory compliance conditions as per precedent in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST). | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 | AVT Mccormick Ingredients (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised SGST from transitional credit after migration from KVAT but failed to produce GST TRAN-1 or proof that credit was available in Electronic Credit Ledger as on 01.07.2017, refund was rightly rejected and writ remedy was not available since statutory appellate remedies were bypassed and writ was filed belatedly. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 | Pr. Commissioner CGST & CX v. North Bengal Tea & Allied (Two rulings) |
1. Where assessee supplied packaged tea taxed at 5 percent using packing materials taxed at 12 percent or 18 percent, resulting in ITC accumulation, refund of ITC under inverted duty structure was allowable since statutory provisions and CBIC circular recognised packing materials as eligible inputs, and refund could not be denied merely because principal input and output attracted identical tax rate.
2. Where respondent supplied packaged tea using bulk tea both taxed at 5 percent and packing materials taxed at 12 or 18 percent, and claimed refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, Circular 135/5/2020 was inapplicable as there was no change in GST rate on same goods, and statutory refund entitlement could not be curtailed by such circular. |
Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Union of India v. Vodafone Idea Ltd. | SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee telecom company was formed by NCLT-approved merger of entities with due intimation to GST authorities and department issued show cause notice and order in name of one amalgamating entity post-merger, initiation or continuation of proceedings against a non-existent entity post merger was void ab initio and without jurisdiction, rendering such orders unsustainable. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Petroliv Petroleums v. State Tax Officer | Where a petitioner claimed denial of opportunity to be heard in assessment proceedings due to internal disputes, health issues and entrustment of portal credentials to counsel, but hearing notices were repeatedly uploaded on GST portal and not acted upon, valid service of notice stood established and responsibility to monitor portal rested with petitioner, so writ petition challenging orders was not maintainable. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Gyankeer Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise And Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate | Where petitioner challenged show cause notice continuing a previously set aside notice under Section 104, issue had already been adjudicated by Division Bench in Gyankeer Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CE and CGST Commissionerate [2026] and with identical circumstances there was no ground to depart from that precedent, allowing writ petition and quashing impugned show cause notice. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 128A | Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | Where petitioner discharged entire admitted tax before notified date but missed prescribed time limit for amnesty scheme application seeking waiver of interest and penalty, such time limit is mandatory and not directory, yet, in interest of justice, due to full tax payment and revenue protection, ex parte order was set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration after granting reasonable opportunity. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |