GST CASE LAW 23.05.2026
| Relevant Act / Portal | Section | Case Law Title / Update Source | Citation | Brief Summary |
| GSTN Portal Update | N/A (Portal Advisory) | E-Way Bill Portal Advisory | Advisory (Target: 15-06-2026) | GSTN proposes a mandatory ‘Ship-To GSTIN’ capture for Bill-To/Ship-To transactions and introduces a voluntary E-Way Bill (EWB) closure facility for suppliers, recipients, and transporters. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 6 | Divyashakti Chemicals v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax | Click Here | Parallel proceedings cannot be challenged via writ if they do not prima facie involve identical demands and the assessee failed to participate earlier to show overlap. The proper remedy is filing for rectification under Sec. 161. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 7 & Sec. 9 | University of Mumbai v. Union of India | Click Here | Statutory University affiliation functions (verifications, infrastructure audits) are mandated by law and not profit-driven or in the furtherance of business. Thus, affiliation fees are not a “supply” and escape GST. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 11 | In re House Construct Infra | Click Here | Pure labor construction contracts provided directly to individual owners for a stand-alone single residential unit (unlinked to larger housing complexes/projects) qualify for GST exemption under Entry 11 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R). |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 11 | University of Mumbai v. Union of India | Click Here | A statutory University is an “educational institution” under Entry 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R). Therefore, its affiliation services are exempt from GST even if they were deemed a supply. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 29 | Tvl.Sri Balajee Udyog v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | Click Here | Cancellation of GST registration is fully justified if a physical inspection reveals inadequate premises and the taxpayer fails to produce transport documents to substantiate the physical movement of goods against ITC claims. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 29 | Muskan Trading Company v. State of Maharashtra | Click Here | A non-speaking, unreasoned GST registration cancellation order passed without granting a personal hearing violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Registration must be restored pending a fresh, reasoned inquiry. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 47 | Siva Viruthambigai v. Deputy State Tax Officer II | Click Here | Where an assessee challenges an assessment but consents to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and 100% of the late fees under Sec. 47, the late fee challenge is settled, and the main dispute is remitted for fresh adjudication on merits. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 54 | Mahanadi Exporttek (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Click Here | A writ petition alleging a breach of natural justice is not maintainable simply because the Revenue did not accept the taxpayer’s submissions, provided adequate opportunities for SCN replies and personal hearings were granted. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 56 | Charan Singh Surjit Singh Gujral v. Union of India | Click Here | Once a seizure/undervaluation dispute is resolved in favor of an exporter, the original shipping bills operate as valid refund applications. Any delay in releasing the IGST refund beyond 60 days commands statutory interest. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 73 | Vinay Hiroo Thadani v. Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise | Click Here | Passing an adverse ITC recovery order against a legal heir regarding the alleged defaults of his deceased father without granting him an independent, adequate personal hearing is a gross breach of natural justice. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 73 | Sun India Pharma Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise | Click Here | If a demand is confirmed because a portal reply to Form GST ASMT-10 was deemed unsatisfactory, the High Court can remit the matter for a fresh hearing on the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 73 | Manas Traders v. State of U.P. | Click Here | Passing an adverse adjudication order under Sec. 73 without specifying the date, time, or venue for an oral hearing violates the statutory mandate requiring both a written reply opportunity and an oral hearing. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 107 | Abdul Rahiman Kunju v. Deputy Commissioner, TDS | Click Here | SLP dismissed where the taxpayer argued that a summary notice in Form GST DRC-01 is not a valid Sec. 74 notice. Because the taxpayer actively participated and replied to the DRC-01, they must use the standard statutory appellate route. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 107 | Manjulaben Vinod Patel v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax | Click Here | An appellate authority must exercise its discretionary powers to condone a marginal delay (e.g., 25 days) if the taxpayer establishes sufficient cause arising from rapid statutory updates, portal errors, or procedural ambiguity. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 112 | Mahanadi Exporttek (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Click Here | When the GSTAT (Tribunal) is fully functional and offers virtual hearing facilities, a writ under Article 226 is not maintainable against a Sec. 107 appellate order absent explicit jurisdictional errors. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 128A | Akshaya Borewells v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise | Click Here | Rejection of an interest/penalty waiver scheme application solely for a delay beyond 3 months is wrong. The timing provision in the conditional waiver notification uses “may” and is directory, meaning applications must be evaluated on merit. |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 130 | Manoj Kumar Debnath v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and GST | Click Here | High Courts will not entertain writ petitions for search-related goods confiscations and penalties when deep factual disputes (such as unrecorded stock discrepancies or digital signature mismatches) require evaluation by an appellate authority. |