GST CASE LAW 01.06.2026
GST CASE LAW 01.06.2026
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 7 | DGGI (HQS) v. Gameskraft Technologies (P.) Ltd. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s determination that an online fantasy sports platform’s contests were skill-based actionable claims (and thus entirely outside the scope of betting/gambling and taxable supply provisions) could not be sustained. | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | |
| Section 9 | DGGI (HQS) v. Gameskraft Technologies (P.) Ltd. | The High Court’s order quashing Section 74 show cause notices (which alleged short payment of GST on betting transactions due to wrong classification) was set aside. The notices were restored for adjudication on merits. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 9 | Indovation Healthcare LLP, In re | Payments received from a PSU (Braithwaite) for operating government wellness centres arise from enforceable contractual obligations. They cannot be treated as a tax-exempt “Government grant-in-aid” merely because they are routed through a PSU, making them liable to GST. | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | |
| Section 11 | Indovation Healthcare LLP, In re |
1. Operational and managerial services unlinked to patient treatment are not exempt healthcare services under Entry 74.
2. Since the composite supply of infrastructure and manpower was made to a PSU and not directly to a Government/local authority, the pure services exemption under Entry 3 was denied. |
Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 49 | Sona Enterprises v. State of A.P. | Depositing money into the electronic cash ledger under RCM does not constitute a statutory tax payment. The tax liability is discharged only when the amount is debited and appropriated to the Government account; hence, interest is leviable for delayed discharge. | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | |
| Section 69 | Ashish Tyagi v. Director General of GST Intelligence | Detention was held illegal, and the petitioner was ordered to be released because the arrest memo issued by the DGGI lacked the mandatory disclosure of the place of arrest and the mandatory CBIC-DIN. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | Sunshine International Agri Tech v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) | An ex parte assessment and bank attachment were set aside and remanded for a fresh decision because the revenue failed to consider the petitioner’s response despite their request for additional time to file a reply. | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | |
| Section 107 | Bengal Cold Rollers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | Where an assessee claimed prejudice due to the non-supply of 14 seized files needed to answer an SCN, but the department claimed the files were not relied upon for the final orders, the Supreme Court relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate route to raise the issue. | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | |
| Section 132 | Asim Kumar v. Union of India | Regular bail was granted to a proprietor accused of passing fake ITC worth Rs. 66.60 crore. The investigation was complete, the accused had spent over a year in custody, had no prior criminal history, and the offense carried a maximum five-year sentence. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |