GST CASE LAWS 07.08.2026
GST CASE LAWS 07.08.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 9 | Sadashiv S. Bennali v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes | Click Here | Writ petitions involving pre/post-GST government works contract disputes (regarding supply segregation and GST computations) were allowed in terms of operative directions in Chandrashekaraiah v. State of Karnataka, giving liberty to challenge orders via appropriate proceedings. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 29 | N. Suveendran v. State Tax Officer | Click Here | Where fraudulent permission letters were used to amend registration post-father’s demise, canceling only the fraudulent amendment while retaining the original registration and permitting a fresh amendment balanced justice without prejudicing either party. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 73 | A.K. Traders v. State of U.P. | Click Here | Service of SCN solely by portal upload after cancellation of registration is inadequate as the taxpayer is no longer obligated to check the portal; the resulting demand order was quashed for violating natural justice. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 75 | Choice Color Coats v. Deputy Director Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence | Click Here | Issuing a single composite show cause notice and summary covering multiple financial years is impermissible, warranting quashing of the consolidated notice with liberty to issue year-wise separate notices. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 75 | Navin Tent House v. State of Rajasthan | Click Here | Passing an ex-parte demand order without providing a requested personal hearing (despite SCN contemplating one) breaches natural justice, vitiates the assessment, and mandates fresh proceedings. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 79 | Karan Singh Security Agency (P.) Ltd. v. State of Odisha | Click Here | Directed lifting of bank attachment upon 50% deposit of GSTR-2A mismatch arrears by a specified date and payment of the remaining balance in two equated instalments. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 132 | Shivam Dwivedi v. Union of India | Click Here | Grant of bail is justified for a non-habitual offender accused of issuing bogus invoices/routing cash where investigation is complete, assessment is pending, evasion is undisclosed, and no risk to justice exists. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 169 | United Chem India v. Excise and Taxation Officer | Click Here | Electronic upload on the GST portal without acknowledgment or reply does not constitute valid service under Section 169; ex-parte proceedings were restored to the SCN stage and appeal limitation was held un-triggered. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 169 | Shanaya Enterprises v. State of Punjab | Click Here | Reaffirmed (per Luxmi Traders) that mere portal uploading of an SCN and Order-in-Original without acknowledgment/reply does not amount to valid service under Section 169. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 171 | DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Oxford Realty LLP | Click Here | Excess ITC benefit passed on to certain homebuyers cannot be set off against shortfalls payable to others; commensurate benefit must be extended to each identifiable buyer individually. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 171 | DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Oxford Realty LLP | Click Here | Homebuyers booking post-30.06.2018 in ongoing real estate projects remain entitled to post-GST ITC benefits and cannot be excluded merely due to price renegotiations absent proof of commensurate price reduction. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 171 | DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Oxford Realty LLP | Click Here | Profiteering in real estate must be computed inclusive of GST to restore homebuyers to the position they would have occupied had the ITC benefit been properly passed on. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 171 | DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Oxford Realty LLP | Click Here | Identifiable profiteered amounts must be refunded directly to respective homebuyers and cannot be deposited into the Consumer Welfare Fund merely due to contact or recovery difficulties. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | 171 | DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Oxford Realty LLP | Click Here | On project-completion basis profiteering, interest under Rule 133(3)(b) is payable at 18% p.a. from the date of payment of the last instalment by each eligible homebuyer until actual refund. |