GST CASE LAWS 26.10.2026

By | October 27, 2026
0 Comment

GST CASE LAWS 26.10.2026

 

Here is the structured table containing the Relevant Act, Section, Case Law Title, Citation, and Brief Summary extracted from your text:
Relevant Act Section Case Law Title Citation Brief Summary
Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 2 Navitas Eduservices (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, South Delhi Click Here Marketing and support services provided by an Indian subsidiary to its foreign parent as an independent subcontractor do not constitute intermediary services; thus, they qualify as exports with place of supply outside India, allowing an ITC refund.
Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 7 Ghanshyam Null Singh v. Himanshu Verma Click Here Transporter failed to produce timely, credible documentation proving goods belonged to genuine buyers/sellers during transit interception; hence, transit passage benefits could not be claimed.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 16 Kunwar Mrityunjay v. Deepak Lamination Click Here ITC cannot be denied solely based on a supplier being reported non-existent post-facto without examining supporting documents and actual physical movement of goods.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 16 RLCR 7Super Market v. Sunil N. Ranote, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Click here Remand ordered for de novo verification of prior-year ITC, IGST paid under the wrong head, and ITC availed under wrong heads where appellate authority denied relief purely due to lack of verification.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 16 Sandvik Coromant India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Click here ITC is allowable for invoices supported by underlying documents, summary invoices covered in GSTR-2A, and import IGST backed by Bills of Entry, but disallowance stands where proof of supplier’s tax payment is missing.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 34 Sandvik Coromant India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Click here Failure to report sales-return credit notes in GSTR-1 does not revive or create output tax liability if credit notes were properly recorded in books and satisfied statutory conditions.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 35 Sandvik Coromant India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Click here Addition of profit on deemed sales by treating inward e-way bills as outward supplies is illegal when all goods are fully accounted for and reconciled by the taxpayer.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 50 Sandvik Coromant India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Click here No interest or penalty applies to wrongly availed ITC reversed prior to SCN issuance if cash/ITC ledger balances never dropped below the wrongly claimed amount (no deemed utilization).
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 50 RLCR 7Super Market v. Sunil N. Ranote, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Click here Statutory interest is payable on any tax finally determined as due; recomputation of interest and penalty must align with the final tax assessment upon remand.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 54 Vikram Inderjit Kapur v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Click here Partial rejection of an ITC refund without issuing Form RFD-08 or granting a pre-decisional opportunity of hearing renders the rejection order void ab initio.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 54 Vikram Inderjit Kapur v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Click here Rejection of refund claims via RFD-06 without RFD-08 or hearing violates mandatory procedure, requiring de novo processing with invoice-wise show cause notices and hearing opportunities.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 54 Hemlata Jaiswal v. Pacific Leather (P.) Ltd. Click Here Manufacturer paying Compensation Cess on inputs (e.g., coal) without cess on outputs is not entitled to inverted duty refund of unutilized Compensation Cess ITC unless Section 54(3) conditions are satisfied.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 54 Panila Chem Ltd. v. State of Gujarat Click here Where electronic summary (Form APL-04) of a favorable appellate order was uploaded after a long delay, a refund application filed immediately thereafter is deemed within limitation.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 54 Ajit Kumar Minz v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd. Click here Voluntary provisional ITC reversal in GSTR-3B communicated by letter cannot be withheld or retained by authorities without a quantified demand or statutory basis.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 54 Ajit Kumar Minz v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd. Click here Refund entitlement for a provisional ITC reversal in one period cannot be withheld on account of unrelated ITC disputes for different tax periods.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 54 Ajit Kumar Minz v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd. Click here Withholding or denying a refund of provisional ITC reversal using a subsequent, unlinked Order-in-Original that is under appeal is legally untenable.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 56 Panila Chem Ltd. v. State of Gujarat Click here Interest at 6% is payable from 60 days post-refund application until actual payment when refund granted under an appellate order is delayed.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 68 Narmada Drinks (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Click here Intra-State e-way bill exemption does not apply to inter-district transit; penalty proceedings for lack of e-way bill require fresh adjudication to verify portal glitch claims.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 68 SRS Traders v. Commissioner. State Goods & Service Tax Click here Inter-district transit without an e-way bill cannot be retrospectively cured by generating e-way bills post-interception; detailed factual appraisal required on remand.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73 Trivesh Enterprises LLP v. Vijay Eknath Kumbhar, Joint Commissioner of State Tax Click here Vague SCNs issued without detailed facts and ex-parte orders confirmed via single-line allegations violate principles of natural justice and vitiate assessment proceedings.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 74 RLCR 7Super Market v. Sunil N. Ranote, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Click here Issuance of a single consolidated SCN and Order-in-Original for multi-year audit periods is legally valid as the statute prescribes limitation but does not mandate year-wise notices.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 74 RLCR 7Super Market v. Sunil N. Ranote, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Click here Extended limitation period and equal penalty under Section 74 cannot be invoked for returns-based mismatches without specific proof of intent to evade tax, fraud, or suppression.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 107 Trivesh Enterprises LLP v. Vijay Eknath Kumbhar, Joint Commissioner of State Tax Click here Section 107 mandates statutory appeals to be decided on merits with reasons; dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution (due to absence of taxpayer) is invalid.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 107 Trivesh Enterprises LLP v. Vijay Eknath Kumbhar, Joint Commissioner of State Tax Click here Orders confirming demands solely due to retrospective cancellation of supplier registration without independent verification of taxpayer’s tax invoices, e-way bills, and payments are unsustainable.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 107 Navitas Eduservices (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, South Delhi Click Here Under Section 107(11), the First Appellate Authority has no power to remand a matter to the Adjudicating Authority; it must decide the matter on its merits.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 113 Narmada Drinks (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Click here Where foundational defects exist in transit penalty orders, Tribunal remand is restricted to allegations in MOV-07 without permitting new facts or enhancement.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 113 SRS Traders v. Commissioner. State Goods & Service Tax Click here Tribunal remanded matter to original authority due to unidentifiable interception details and material errors in previous orders, restricting proceedings strictly to existing MOV-07.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 129 SRS Traders v. Commissioner. State Goods & Service Tax Click here Plea of non-service of MOV-07 is barred under Section 160(2) when detention records and taxpayer’s contemporaneous reply show the notice was issued and acted upon.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 129 SRS Traders v. Commissioner. State Goods & Service Tax Click here Generating e-way bills post-interception does not cure initial lack of e-way bill during inter-district movement; adjudication must distinguish minor lapses from substantive breaches.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 129 SRS Traders v. Commissioner. State Goods & Service Tax Click here Payment of tax and penalty under protest/objection to release detained goods does not constitute a waiver or final acceptance of tax liability.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 129 Narmada Drinks (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Click here Penalty imposed via a non-speaking order passed the day after interception, ignoring the 7-day statutory reply window, is unsustainable for breach of natural justice.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 129 Mangal Sponge and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax Click here Transporting goods with an expired e-way bill without justification attracts penalty under Section 129, as proof of intent to evade tax (mens rea) is not required for this statutory contravention.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 129 Ghanshyam Null Singh v. Himanshu Verma Click Here Belated production of unauthenticated and inconsistent documents after interception fails to establish genuine coverage for undeclared goods, justifying detention.