| Section 26 |
Sanchit Seth v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise |
Arrest for alleged clandestine manufacture and cess evasion is unlawful when mandatory procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—such as proper arrest memo, timing consistency, family intimation, right to counsel, prior authorization, and quantified evasion—are breached; release ordered. |
Click Here |
Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025 |
| Section 29 |
Ajijul Haque @ Hoque v. State of West Bengal |
Cancellation of GST registration purely due to a 6-month default in return filing without any tax evasion is counterproductive to revenue; cancellation set aside to allow restoration upon filing pending returns and clearing dues. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 |
Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, CGST Delhi West |
Where an appellate order set aside a rejection of unutilized ITC refund without directing unconditional sanction, and a fresh rejection order ensued, the appropriate legal recourse is a statutory appeal rather than a writ petition. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 62 |
Narasus Diary v. Deputy State Tax Officer II |
Where best judgment assessment was framed for non-filing of returns following cancellation, but the assessee subsequently furnished GSTR-3B reflecting tax payment exceeding the assessed demand, fresh assessment consideration is warranted. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 |
Harphool Chowdhury @ Harphool Choudhary v. State of West Bengal |
Adjudication order passed without granting a mandatory personal hearing despite adverse contemplation violates natural justice; order set aside, bank attachment quashed, and matter remanded. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 |
Sumin Dutta v. State of West Bengal |
Uploading summary SCN and ex parte order exclusively under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab without intimation or opportunity for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) constitutes a procedural invalidity requiring fresh adjudication. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 |
Harphool Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal |
Scheduling a personal hearing prior to the expiry of the reply period and incorrectly uploading the order while realizing demand via bank attachment denies reasonable opportunity; adjudication quashed for fresh proceedings. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 97 |
Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re |
Advance ruling provisions apply strictly to proposed or ongoing transactions; an application regarding the GST taxability of an arbitral award for contracts completed prior to the GST regime is not maintainable. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 101 |
Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re |
The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) possesses statutory jurisdiction under Section 101(1) to examine the primary maintainability of an advance ruling application, even if the lower authority admitted it under Section 98(2) and no departmental cross-appeal was filed. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 |
Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, CGST Delhi West |
High Court declined writ intervention against the rejection of an unutilized ITC refund claim, granting liberty to pursue the efficacious alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 |
Alis Super Market v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax |
Dismissing a belated appeal as time-barred without providing an opportunity to cure a delayed pre-deposit under Amnesty Notification No. 53/2023 is unjustified; appeal restored for verification of eligibility. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 |
Heramb Enterprises v. C Pushpalatha, Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes |
Unloading goods at third-party premises without a valid invoice or e-way bill, followed by generating an e-way bill post-interception, indicates wilful intent to evade tax and justifies penalty under Section 129. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 132 |
Kapil Chugh v. State of U.P. |
Parallel criminal prosecution under general penal law (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita / BNS) for fake ITC cannot run alongside special penal mechanisms under GST law; BNS charge sheet quashed under the doctrine of special law primacy. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 142(11)(a) |
Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re |
Section 142(11)(a) prevents double taxation based on the leviability of tax under erstwhile laws, not actual payment; mere non-payment of service tax pre-GST does not automatically make the receipt liable to GST. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 142(2)(a) |
Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re |
An arbitral award received post-GST for pre-GST completed contracts does not ipso facto constitute an “upward price revision” under Section 142(2)(a); characterization of receipts requires fact-finding beyond the scope of advance rulings. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
