GST CASE LAWS 05.10.2026

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Heading 4504 10 10	Balasaria Agencies (P.) Ltd., In re	Rubberised and agglomerated cork sheets made by mixing cork granules with polymer/binders remain classifiable under 4504 10 10 (5% GST), as rubber binders do not alter the principal cork classification.	Click Here	Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 7	KSB Ltd., In re	Recoveries made by an employer from employees for third-party canteen meals constitute consideration for taxable supply under GST; unrecovered/free portions are Schedule III employment perquisites.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 7	KSB Ltd., In re	Provision of canteen facility completely free of cost to employees by an employer qualifies as a perquisite under Schedule III, which is outside the scope of GST supply.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 7	KSB Ltd., In re	Canteen facilities mandated by law provided to employees on a non-profit basis attract GST on per-meal recoveries, as these recoveries form consideration incidental to the main business.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Novus Animal Nutrition India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	Writ challenging classification/exemption of animal feed supplements vs. medicaments was dismissed, as disputes over factual classification and natural justice require statutory appeal remedies.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	Anant Decor v. Commissioner of State GST	Denial of IGST Input Tax Credit was sustained under Section 155 where the taxpayer failed to produce supplier-side GSTR-1/B2CL evidence for high-value transactions.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	Anant Decor v. Commissioner of State GST	Taxpayer must provide specific documentary evidence and invoice-wise reconciliation to substantiate residual IGST ITC claims; failing to discharge Section 155 burden justifies tax demand.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	Anant Decor v. Commissioner of State GST	For FY 2018-19, non-reflection in GSTR-2A alone is not conclusive, but failure to submit supporting documents and proof under Section 16 justifies the denial of excess IGST ITC.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 49	Anant Decor v. Commissioner of State GST	Cross-head set-off between IGST, CGST, and SGST cannot be granted without transaction-level mapping linking short availment in one head to excess in another.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 54	Devi Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST Delhi South	Withholding exporter’s IGST refund under Section 54(11) is justified during ongoing anti-evasion investigations involving non-existent suppliers and fraudulent tax credits.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 69	Sandeep Kumar v. State of Punjab	Pre-arrest bail was denied to individuals involved in inducing purchases via non-existent firms, issuing fake invoices, and evading GST where custodial interrogation was necessary.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 69	Prayank Gupta v. Union of India	Anticipatory bail petitions filed under BNSS in response to mere CGST searches or summons are premature and non-maintainable without a formal arrest order under Section 69.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73	Choice Estates and Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	Issuing a single composite show cause notice and order covering multiple assessment years under non-fraud cases is impermissible and liable to be quashed.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73	Anant Decor v. Commissioner of State GST	Where principal tax liability on disputed ITC is sustained, mandatory interest under Section 50(3)/Rule 88B(3) and minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 73(9) are fully applicable.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 75	Sheik Dawood v. Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise	Orders relying on third-party statements to deny ITC are vitiated by breach of natural justice if cross-examination of those witnesses is refused despite specific requests.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 120	Sandeep Tiwari v. Gainwell Commosales (P.) Ltd.	Departmental appeal was dismissed at the threshold because the disputed tax was below the monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for filing departmental appeals.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 129	V.K Brothers v. Sharad Kumar Shukla	Interception of goods in transit without a valid invoice and E-way bill justifies penalty under Section 129; generating documents post-interception cannot cure the initial violation.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 129	V.K Brothers v. Sharad Kumar Shukla	Concealment and misdescription of goods (transporting copper scrap disguised as aluminium scrap) shows clear intent to evade tax, justifying detention and Section 129 penalties.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017