GST CASE LAW DIGEST 12.6.2026
GST CASE LAW DIGEST 12.6.2026
GST Case Law Analysis Summary
| Relevant Act | Section(s) | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 122(1A) | Mayank Bansal vs. Union of India | Penalty on partners as natural persons was upheld. The provision targets the actual individuals benefiting from tax evasion (undisclosed cash transfers of development rights without invoices), irrespective of the firm’s structure. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 73 | Divya Textile Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner | A tax demand order passed after the extended limitation period (31.08.2024) for FY 2019-20 was held void. Administrative workload or minor revenue loss cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | N/A (Exemption Notification) | Roundwell Raja Water vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-1 | Supply of water via tankers is exempt from GST, but the burden of proving that the supply wasn’t taxable packaged drinking water rests on the assessee. Matter remanded to consider additional supporting documents. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 73 | Aranmula Chit Funds (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Intelligence) | Issuing a single, composite Show Cause Notice (SCN) and adjudication order covering multiple assessment years for non-fraud cases is impermissible. The order was quashed with liberty to issue separate notices per period. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 16 | Gurucharan Kangsa Banik vs. Union of India | Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a bona fide buyer solely due to the supplier’s tax default, provided the buyer has valid invoices and paid the price plus GST via regular bank channels. Revenue must recover from the defaulting supplier. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 107 (Pre-deposit) | Ncdex E Markets Ltd. vs. Union of India | TCS amounts paid under protest prior to the assessment were allowed to be adjusted against the statutory 10% pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal, satisfying the stay condition. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 6(2)(b) | Murliwala Pigment vs. Union of India | The statutory bar against parallel proceedings by State and Central GST authorities does not apply if there is no proof of any prior active State proceedings on the exact same subject matter before the CGST action. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Sec. 16 | Metal Syndicate vs. Union of India | Reaffirmed that ITC cannot be denied to a purchasing dealer for a supplier’s tax default if statutory compliance and banking payments are established. Revenue can only act against the buyer if collusion or bad faith is proven. | Click Here |