GST CASE LAWS 09.10.2026

Here is the structured table containing the requested details extracted from the provided text:

Section	Case Law Title / Event	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
N/A (Press Release)	Recommendations of the 57th Meeting of the GST Council	Press release summarizing the recommendations of the 57th GST Council meeting, covering rationalisation of arrest/prosecution provisions, simplified registration for large businesses/ECOs, refund measures, and compliance easing.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Jaidka Power Systems (P.) Ltd., In re	Electrically operated vehicles (e-rickshaws, e-carts, e-scooters) powered solely by electric motors qualify for a concessional GST rate of 5% (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) regardless of whether batteries are fitted at the time of supply.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Manash Ghosh v. State of West Bengal	Denial of GST reimbursement to a government contractor for works executed post-1 July 2017 based on a pre-GST contract clause was held unsustainable, requiring reconsideration under post-GST provisions.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	Ramasamy Nagarajan v. Additional Commissioner of GST Appeals-II	Rejection of ITC solely for belated filing of GSTR-3B was set aside as the return was filed within the extended statutory deadline under Section 16(5).	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	Rameshwar Gupta v. Commissioner SGST, GST Office, E Lucknow	ITC denial based strictly on GSTR-3B vs. GSTR-2A/2B mismatch without verifying underlying invoices and transactional evidence was set aside for factual adjudication as per CBIC guidelines.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 29	MRJ Trading v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West Commissionerate	Retrospective cancellation of GST registration without indicating such intent in the show cause notice was held unsustainable and set aside, though prospective cancellation remained valid.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 50	Shyam Ispat India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commissioner, State GST	The proviso to Rule 88B(1) excluding ECL balance from interest calculation applies prospectively from 10-07-2024 and cannot be applied retrospectively to earlier tax periods.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 50	Shyam Ispat India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commissioner, State GST	Depositing funds into the Electronic Cash Ledger does not discharge tax liability until debit occurs upon filing GSTR-3B; thus, interest under Section 50 is payable for delayed return filing till the actual debit date.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 74	Aparna Collection v. Union of India	Statutory limitation period attaches to the issuance date of the substantive adjudication order/SCN, not subsequent electronic summary forms like DRC-07 or DRC-01.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 107	Rameshwar Gupta v. Commissioner SGST, GST Office, E Lucknow	A CA/CMA reconciliation certificate for ITC mismatches under CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST is admissible before the Tribunal as corroborative evidence even if issued post-appeal.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 107	William E Connor and Associates Sourcing (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST	The Appellate Authority lacks statutory power to remand proceedings back to the adjudicating authority and must instead confirm, modify, or annul the order.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 120	Suman Patel v. Punit Kumar Aggarwal	Revenue’s appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed at the threshold as non-maintainable because the disputed tax/penalty fell below the prescribed monetary limit of ₹20,00,000.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 129	Jubilant Agri and Consumer Products Ltd. v. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Assistant Commissioner	Transit penalty under Section 129 was unsustainable where valid documents accompanied goods and an old address printed due to ERP error did not indicate intent to evade tax.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 129	Abdul Hai v. Dhananjay Kumar	Detention and penalty based solely on a minor address mismatch between consignee details and registered place, without evidence of tax evasion or quantity/quality discrepancies, was set aside.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 129	Jubilant Agri and Consumer Products Ltd. v. Sone Lal Dohrey, Additional Commissioner Grade-II Appeals	Omitting Part B of the e-way bill for intra-state movement under 50 km from depot to transporter warehouse is permitted under Rule 138(3) proviso, attracting no penalty under Section 129.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017