GST CASE LAW 22.09.2026
Here is the summary of the recent Goods and Services Tax (GST) case laws organized in a table format:
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 5 | Katyani Exports v. Union of India | Notification No. 2/2017 (as amended by Notification No. 2/2022) validly confers pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs; allocation circulars merely regulate administration. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 17 | Vasanta Resorts and Spa (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | High Court set aside the dismissal of a belated appeal challenging a retrospective amendment to Section 17(5)(d) and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 30 | Md Qamaruddin Khan v. YRK Constructions | When allowing registration revocation after pending returns/taxes are filed, authorities must mandate the recovery of interest, late fees, and penalties under Rule 23(1). | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 67 | Puneet Batra v. Union of India | Advocate-client privilege does not bar the search of an advocate’s cabin if it forms part of authorized premises, as privilege protects confidential communications rather than locations. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 69 | Sanjeet Kumar Pandey @ Sanjeet Pandey v. Union of India | Petitioner arrested for fraudulent ITC issuance was granted bail since the investigation was completed and the charge sheet had already been filed. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | Jil Farm Products v. Audit Officer | Composite show-cause notices covering multiple financial years are unsustainable as separate notices are required for each assessment year. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | Shri Shyam Trading Company v. Commissioner of Chhattisgarh State Tax | Assessment orders passed solely on a summary show-cause notice without a separate detailed notice specifying reasons are unsustainable and must be quashed. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Hari Om Udyog v. State of U.P. | Parallel GST proceedings by State and Central authorities involving distinct factual issues require statutory appeal rather than writ jurisdiction. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Indorama India (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal | Rejection of IGST refund on ocean freight due to an illegible bill of lading was set aside for fresh consideration after the petitioner offered to furnish a clear document. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Thok Bhav.com v. State of Rajasthan | When an assessment order is uploaded under additional tabs and an appeal is delayed due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, the appellate authority should entertain it. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Katyani Exports v. Union of India | The appellate forum for an order passed by a common adjudicating authority lies before the Commissioner (Appeals) where the common authority is posted, as notified. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Oasys Marketing Agency v. Deputy State Tax Officer | Where an assessment order was only uploaded online without physical service or personal hearing, the petitioner was relegated to appeal with instructions to bypass limitation periods. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 112 | Devendra Singh v. Adroit Technical Services (P.) Ltd. | Departmental appeals where the tax in dispute is below the Rs. 20 lakh monetary threshold are liable to be dismissed at the threshold. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 112 | Prabhas Kumar v. Radico, Authorized Partners | Low-value departmental appeals falling below the prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit must be dismissed unless exceptional circumstances are established. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 | Lachmandas & Company v. Commissioner of Kerala State | Failure to pass a penalty/tax confirmation order within the mandatory 7-day period from notice service under Section 129(3) renders the order illegal and without jurisdiction. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 | Tiger Steels v. Commissioner of State Tax | A breach of the mandatory 7-day statutory time limit for passing a penalty order under Section 129(3) vitiates the entire proceeding, rendering it void ab initio. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 | GMG Electric v. Commissioner of State Tax | Extreme administrative delays in passing final detention penalty orders beyond the statutory 7-day limit render the order a nullity in law. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 168 | Katyani Exports v. Union of India | Assigning composite SCNs arising from DGGI investigations to a common adjudicating authority using the highest demand criterion is objective, valid, and lawful. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |

