GST CASE LAWS 12.10.2026
Here is the detailed summary of all the GST case laws provided, organized into a clear tabular format:
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 6 | A.G. Enterprises v. Union of India | Click Here | Concurrent State and Central GST proceedings concerning the same supplier are not barred under Section 6 if they pertain to different tax periods and lack complete factual identity. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 73 | Sri Lakshmi Ganga Bhavani Oil Mill v. Assistant Commissioner ST | Click Here | Issuing a single composite Show Cause Notice or assessment order across multiple tax periods is impermissible; both original and appellate orders based on composite assessments were set aside. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 73 | Jovin George v. Assistant Commissioner | Click Here | A consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years for tax/ITC demands not involving fraud is invalid and must be quashed, leaving liberty to issue separate year-wise notices. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 73 | Harish Kumar M. v. State of Kerala | Click Here | A composite SCN spanning multiple financial years is invalid under Section 73; fresh separate notices must be issued for each relevant year. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 73 | Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal | Click Here | Uploading an SCN exclusively under the ‘Additional Notice and Orders’ tab on the GST portal without separate intimation violates principles of natural justice, vitiating the ex parte order. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 74 | Aditya Industries v. State of H.P. | Click Here | SCNs proposing denial of ITC for fraud/suppression under Section 74 must specifically correlate grounds with allegations; failure to do so renders extended proceedings unsustainable. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 74 | A.G. Enterprises v. Union of India | Click Here | A stand-alone writ challenge against an SCN is not maintainable once an Order-in-Original is passed; the petitioner must pursue a statutory appeal covering all jurisdictional and factual grounds. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 74 | A.G. Enterprises v. Union of India | Click Here | Clubbing multiple periods in an SCN invoking Section 74 does not automatically invalidate proceedings if demands per period are identifiable; such procedural/limitation issues fall under appellate jurisdiction. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 74 | A.G. Enterprises v. Union of India | Click Here | A writ petition against an Order-in-Original confirming ITC demand on fake invoices is not maintainable when statutory remedies exist and no ex facie jurisdictional error or natural justice breach is shown. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 75 | A.G. Enterprises v. Union of India | Click Here | Allegations of natural justice violations requiring detailed factual verification (such as disputed hearing dates) do not justify bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 75 | A.G. Enterprises v. Union of India | Click Here | Where an SCN alleges non-receipt of goods and the order confirms non-receipt under Section 16(2)(b), an incidental reference to Section 16(2)(c) does not constitute traveling beyond the SCN. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 75 | K.U. Mohammed Niyas v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise | Click Here | Composite show cause notices and resultant assessment orders covering multiple financial years are impermissible under the GST statutory scheme and are liable to be quashed. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 111 | Shrikrishna Subray Hegde v. Nagshanti Autocars LLP | Click Here | A departmental appeal before GSTAT can be withdrawn without examining merits under Rule 42 of GSTAT Rules, 2025 where the monetary threshold is not met and no objection is raised. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 112 | Sandeep Tiwari v. J.M.R. Equipments | Click Here | A departmental appeal before GSTAT involving tax demand below the statutory monetary threshold of ₹20,00,000 is not maintainable and must be dismissed at the threshold. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 129 / 125 | Valuecart (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (ENF) | Click Here | Returning imported goods to a warehouse without an e-way bill due to a missed slot is a procedural lapse without mens rea; Section 129 penalty was quashed and reduced to a general penalty under Section 125. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 129 | Om Fuels v. Pawan Kumar Jeewani | Click Here | Mere expiry of an e-way bill near destination during long transit, without evidence of intent to evade tax or fraudulent diversion, cannot justify penalty under Section 129. |