| Section 47 & Section 125 |
SVR Developers vs. Assistant Commissioner (FAC), Chennai |
For assessees with a turnover below ₹5 crores, once a late fee under Section 47 is paid for a delayed annual return (GSTR-9), a general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 169 (Service of Notice) |
Suvida Traders vs. State of Punjab |
Serving a show cause notice via affixation without proving that other prescribed modes were impracticable is invalid. Consequently, immediate tax recovery without recorded reasons before the statutory 3-month expiry is illegal. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Form GST DRC-01 & Section 73/74 |
Comfort Battery vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax |
Leaving the proposed penalty amount as ‘0’ in the statutory Form DRC-01 creates fatal ambiguity, even if an annexure proposes a penalty. This omission deprives the assessee of the statutory right to pay a 25% reduced penalty before adjudication, vitiating the demand. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 69 & 132 (Arrest / Procedure) |
Sushant Goel vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence |
An arrest is illegal and void if officers fail to supply written grounds of arrest, omit the CBIC Document Identification Number (DIN) from the arrest memo, omit the place of arrest, or bypass remand safeguards. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| DIN Mandate / Validity of Order |
Sri Hayanidhi Infratech Services vs. Additional Commissioner of State Tax |
An assessment order issued without a mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN) is non-est (does not exist in law) and invalid. A writ challenge remains maintainable even if a prior statutory appeal failed due to time-bar delays. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 16(4) & Section 16(5) |
Doulathray S. Marnoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-1 |
Rejection of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for FY 2018-19 based on Section 16(4) time-limits is unsustainable because the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) permits ITC for returns filed up to November 30, 2021. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 54(3) (Refund / Export) |
Varian Medical Systems International India (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
Rejection of a software export refund claim via a non-speaking order that fails to record specific findings or consider submitted evidence is liable to be set aside. The department incorrectly labeled the exporter as an “intermediary.” |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Assessment of Deceased Person |
M. Yasir Rahuman vs. Deputy State Tax Officer/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer |
A GST assessment order passed in the name of a sole proprietorship after the death of the proprietor is a nullity. The department must fresh-initiate proceedings against the legal heirs instead. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| ITC Verification / Principles of Natural Justice |
M R K Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes |
A summary assessment order disallowing ITC because the business was found non-functioning during an inspection must be reconsidered if the petitioner later produces genuine transaction documents (e-way bills, ledgers). |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) |
Link up Textiles (P.) Ltd., In re |
When a single pack contains two pyjama sets costing ₹1,371 in total, the value per piece breaks down to ₹686. Because it falls below the ₹1,000 threshold per piece, it qualifies for the lower 5% GST slab. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 (Appellate Condonation) |
Thar Solar Irrigation vs. State of Rajasthan |
While the statutory appellate authority cannot condone a delay beyond the Section 107 cap, the High Court under writ jurisdiction can condone such delays upon showing sufficient cause (e.g., prolonged illness) to protect livelihoods. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Assessment Framework |
Srivalli Shipping and Transport (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax |
Issuing a single, composite assessment order across multiple financial years/tax periods is legally impermissible. The statutory framework dictates period-wise determinations and separate proceedings for each year. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Classification (Rule 2(a) of GI Rules) |
Navya Electric Vehicle (P.) Ltd., In re |
Supply of complete CKD (Completely Knocked Down) kits containing all parts necessary to assemble an electric three-wheeler in a single consignment is classifiable as a finished vehicle (HSN 8703 at 5% GST), not as separate parts at 18%. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Deemed Valuation Split (70:30 Mechanism) |
Tata Power Renewable Energies Ltd. vs. Union of India |
For solar power system installations, the statutory 70:30 (services to goods) valuation split is mandatory. The department cannot demand 18% GST on the entire value simply because separate invoices or different HSNs were used. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
| Duplicity of Orders |
Abarna Enterprises vs. Deputy State Tax Officer -1 |
Where two separate assessment orders are mistakenly issued for the exact same tax period and discrepancies, the first order must be quashed, and only the later order (which includes an additional discrepancy) will survive. |
Click Here |
CGST / SGST Act, 2017 |
