GST CASE LAWS 02.11.2026

Case Law Summary

SECTION	CASE LAW TITLE	BRIEF SUMMARY	CITATION	RELEVANT ACT
Section 9	Ajit Kumar Minz v. Natasha Automobiles (P.) Ltd.	Hyundai SUV models (Creta 1.6, Alcazar 2.0, Tucson 2.0) meeting engine, length, and ground clearance criteria were correctly subject to 22% Compensation Cess under Entry 52B.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Shree Salasar Balaji Polysack (P.) Ltd., In re	HDPE laminated woven Geomembrane for technical uses falls under HSN Heading 5911; GST applied at 12% up to 21.09.2025 (Entry 168, Sch II) and at 5% from 22.09.2025 (Entry 386, Sch I).	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Shree Salasar Balaji Polysack (P.) Ltd., In re	Laminated woven Geomembrane pond liners manufactured via extrusion and slitting under 5 mm for technical agricultural/aquaculture applications are classifiable under HSN 59111000.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Sundek Sports (P.) Ltd., In re	Bearings suitable for independent use without specific outdoor gym equipment integration must be classified under specific Heading 8482 via Rule 3(a), not under Chapter 95.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Sundek Sports (P.) Ltd., In re	Outdoor gym equipment (twisters, pull-up bars, etc.) and spare parts fall under Heading 9506 91 90 as general physical exercise articles, attracting 18% GST (Entry 619, Sch II).	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Sundek Sports (P.) Ltd., In re	Outdoor playground and gym equipment (with spare parts) supplied to parks, schools, and municipalities are classified under HSN 9506 and attract 5% GST based on Chapter 95 Note 3.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Advaim Motors (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central GST	Statutory ARAI certificates showing laden ground clearance <170 mm prevail over unverified foreign web figures; Revenue failed to discharge burden of proof for higher cess demand.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Advaim Motors (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central GST	Notification 03/2023 introducing unladen ground clearance for SUVs was prospective; higher cess demand on supplies prior to 26.07.2023 based on unladen standards was unsustainable.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	Mishka Steels LLP v. Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax & CX	Negative blocking/inoperability of Electronic Credit Ledger without a specific blocking order or proper statutory evaluation was held improper and illegal.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 19	Fiberhome India (P.) Ltd. v. Lalit Mishra, Additional Commissioner	Recrediting IGST in GSTR-3B after paying correct CGST/UTGST via DRC-03 cannot create fresh ITC automatically; statutory refund routes and SCN safeguards must be respected.	Click Here	Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 49	Fiberhome India (P.) Ltd. v. Lalit Mishra, Additional Commissioner	Payment of correct CGST/SGST via DRC-03 along with ledger recredits confirms proper tax discharge for misclassified inter-State supplies, requiring revenue reconciliation without duplicate claims.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 50	Fiberhome India (P.) Ltd. v. Lalit Mishra, Additional Commissioner	Interest cannot be levied on misclassified transactions once corrective tax is paid; mere ITC availment without proof of utilization or wrongful benefit does not trigger interest.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 59	Advaim Motors (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central GST	Self-assessment under Section 59 obligates dealers to apply the correct statutory cess rate; relying on a manufacturer’s cess rate serves as good faith but is not a complete legal defense.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73	Advaim Motors (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central GST	Cess demand and penalties issued on unladen ground clearance basis for periods prior to notification amendment were set aside as differential short payment was unproven.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73	Fiberhome India (P.) Ltd. v. Lalit Mishra, Additional Commissioner	Penalty under non-fraud provisions for recrediting ITC after DRC-03 payment was unsustainable without establishing statutory default grounds or distinction between restoration and new ITC.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73	Fiberhome India (P.) Ltd. v. Lalit Mishra, Additional Commissioner	An SCN that fails to clarify whether a disputed GSTR-3B entry was fresh ITC or output-tax restoration suffers from material defect, rendering tax, interest, and penalty demands void.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 74	Ajit Kumar Minz v. Natasha Automobiles (P.) Ltd.	DGGI finding of short-payment of Compensation Cess (20% vs 22%) due to suppression justified differential tax, interest, and penalties under Sections 74(1) and 122(1)(i).	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 75	Mishka Steels LLP v. Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax & CX	Ex parte demand order passed after ignoring an SCN reply uploaded on the GST portal violates natural justice; order was quashed for fresh adjudication with a personal hearing.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 75	Mayur Industries Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)	Assessment order passed by merely uploading SCN on portal without physical/email service or personal hearing to a cancelled-registration taxpayer was set aside for violating natural justice.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Rule 89	Morepen Laboratories Limited v. Union of India	SCN issued under Rule 89(4B) after its omission without a saving clause is void ab initio and non est in law as the authority lacked statutory power on the notice date.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017