GST CASE LAWS 27.10.2026

Here is the summary and analysis of the case laws and statutory notifications provided, presented in a structured table.

Case Law & Statutory Notifications Summary

Relevant Act	Section	Case Law Title / Circular	Citation	Brief Summary
Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Tariff / Classification	Roongta Ispat Udyog v. Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Kanpur	Click here	Ghamella/Tasla (manufactured via deep-drawing without cutting edges) falls under HSN 7323 94 10 as household tableware/kitchenware, not as exempt agricultural hand tools under HSN 8201.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 16	Jaykay Trade Links v. Assistant Commissioner	Click Here	Under the non-obstante Section 16(5), if returns for Jan–Mar 2019 were filed by 30.11.2021, the Section 16(4) deadline becomes irrelevant, entitling the petitioner to ITC.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 34	Agrico Organics Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka	Click Here	Reporting tax on in-year returned goods credit notes as ITC in GSTR-3B without reducing output tax caused no revenue loss; error was procedural, so Section 34 was substantively complied with.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 54	Hirenkumar Valjibhai Sankhala v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax	Click here	Refund claim for tax voluntarily deposited during search is non-maintainable as no tax was paid in excess; SC dismissed SLP as not pressed while granting liberty to file a statutory appeal.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 67	Hirenkumar Valjibhai Sankhala v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax	Click here	Voluntary payment made post-admission of tax suppression during search, without contemporaneous complaint of coercion, cannot be challenged as coercive recovery under writ jurisdiction.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 73	Agrico Organics Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka	Click Here	A demand raised solely on GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A mismatch without verifying records/credit notes is unsustainable; mismatch alone for FY 2017-18 does not establish wrongful ITC availment.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 73	Agrico Organics Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka	Click Here	Where no tax was found to be due or wrongly availed, interest (as a compensatory levy) and penalty under Section 73 cannot be sustained.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 74	Hirenkumar Valjibhai Sankhala v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax	Click here	Voluntary deposit via DRC-03 post-search concludes proceedings; DRC-04 is merely an acknowledgment with no fixed timeline, rendering subsequent coercion claims/refund requests invalid.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 74	Marvel Tours (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	Click here	Issuing a single composite Show Cause Notice under Section 74(1) across multiple assessment years is impermissible and invalid; period-wise notices must be issued afresh.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 75	Agrico Organics Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka	Click Here	Where SCN was confined strictly to GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A mismatch, the Revenue cannot introduce new grounds on appeal regarding non-reversal or pass-through of incidence.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 111	Afia Steel Ispat Private Limited v. Rajesh Kumar, Additional Commissioner of SGST (Appeal)	Click here	Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to persistent non-compliance, failure to cure defects despite notice, and repeated unexcused absences by the appellant.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 112	P K Feeds & Manures v. Quorum	Click here	Delay in filing appeal was condoned as bona fide due to accountant’s exit, lack of portal awareness, and CA’s ill-health; balance recovery deemed stayed pending disposal.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 122	Roongta Ispat Udyog v. Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Kanpur	Click here	Deliberately shifting classification from HSN 8201 9000 (0%) to HSN 7323 94 10 for identical goods without physical changes constitutes tax suppression, justifying Section 122(1)(x) penalty.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 125	Omega Slayers (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Tax State Tax Lko.	Click here	Imposition of a ₹50,000 penalty under UP GST for delayed return filing breached the statutory cap under Section 125, resulting in the penalty order being quashed.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 128A	Baama Ventures v. State Tax Officer	Click Here	Taxpayer depositing full amnesty liability in ECL on time achieves substantive compliance; minor delay in submitting the appropriation form cannot bar amnesty benefits under Section 128A.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 129	Asat Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax	Click Here	Inter-state stock transfers with e-way bills expired by 6 days without extension or valid justification (e.g., breakdown) warrant a Section 129 penalty; stock transfer status grants no exemption.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 129	Asat Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax	Click Here	CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST does not bar Section 129 proceedings for expired e-way bills; 200% tax penalty is validly sustained.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 129	Asat Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax	Click Here	Proof of intent to evade tax (mens rea) is not required for civil detention and penalty proceedings under Section 129 once the statutory breach is established.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 129	Asat Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax	Click Here	Intercepting goods with e-way bills expired by 6 days without extension or attempt to regularize transit justifies an adverse inference and sustained Section 129 penalty.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 171	DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering v. Candeur Constructions	Click here	Anti-profiteering computation of 1.70% additional ITC benefit based on pre/post-GST credits relative to purchase value is legally sustainable and ensures equitable buyer-wise allocation.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 171	DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering v. Candeur Constructions	Click here	Pre-GST purchase/credit data can validly benchmark additional ITC benefits under Section 171 even if the post-GST Commencement Certificate was issued later, absent proof of a separate project.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 171	DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering v. Candeur Constructions	Click here	Profiteering calculation yielding ₹43.56/sq. ft. (totaling ₹1.632 crore) based on OC and sold area is valid, and GST on excess realization forms part of the profiteered amount.

Please let me know if you would like any further breakdown or additional insights on these decisions!