GST CASE LAWS 17.10.2026

Here is the requested information formatted into a clear, easy-to-read table:

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 9	Kor Chems Through Partner Sanjay Rameshchandra Soni v. Assistant Commissioner, Cgst and Central Excise	Assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot amounts to assignment of benefits in immovable property, not a supply under section 7, and is thus not liable to GST, making both ITC reversal and interest payment unsustainable.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Sunil Vishvasrao Khune, In re	Redevelopment and leasing out of commercial building units for rental income constitutes a supply in the course or furtherance of business, classifiable under Heading No. 9972, and is liable to GST regardless of scale, volume, or funding source.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Sunil Vishvasrao Khune, In re	Sale of under-construction commercial units qualifies as a supply under Heading No. 9954 taxable at 18%, but no GST applies where the entire consideration is received after completion or issuance of the occupation certificate.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Jignesh Kantilal Makadia, In re	Papad Khar manufactured by mixing, solidifying, and drying NaCl, Na2CO3, and NaHCO3 is classifiable under Heading 2836 as sodium sesquicarbonate, attracting GST at 18%.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 11	Jignesh Kantilal Makadia, In re	Input tax treatment cannot be derived from the tax-exempt status of the final product (Papad); thus, Papad Khar classified under Heading 2836 attracts 18% GST and is denied exemption under Notification 2/2017.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 11	Rockline Constructions, In re	Exemption under Entry 3A is available from 25.01.2018 for a composite works contract executed for a local authority’s sewerage project where goods value was 11.17%, provided the final goods-to-total ratio on contract completion does not exceed 25%.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	Sunil Vishvasrao Khune, In re	ITC on inputs/input services for constructing commercial units for sale and rent is admissible to the extent of sales occurring before the receipt of the occupation or completion certificate.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 17	Sunil Vishvasrao Khune, In re	Inputs and input services used for constructing a commercial building on own account for leasing purposes are blocked under section 17(5)(d), as the bar applies even when property is developed for business and only plant/machinery is excluded.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 17	Kor Chems Through Partner Sanjay Rameshchandra Soni v. Assistant Commissioner, Cgst and Central Excise	Section 17(5)(d) blocking of ITC applies only to construction-related expenditure; it cannot be invoked for GST paid on the mere acquisition of leasehold rights in an industrial plot without construction.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 29	Indu Sarma v. Union of India	Where registration was suspended and SCN was issued without a reply or exhaustion of statutory remedies by the petitioner, the writ petition was not entertained, directing the petitioner to approach the Proper Officer.	[2026] 191 taxmann.com 245 (Gauhati)	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 67	Conner Institute of Health Care and Research Center (P.) Ltd v. Superintendent of CGST	Maintainability of a writ petition challenging search, seizure, and coerced deposits was rejected as factual issues regarding voluntariness and witnesses require examination by statutory authorities before final determination.	[2026] 191 taxmann.com 243 (Delhi)	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 74	Kor Chems Through Partner Sanjay Rameshchandra Soni v. Assistant Commissioner, Cgst and Central Excise	Where ITC was voluntarily reversed prior to SCN and no taxability, fraud, or suppression was established, demands and penalties under Section 74(1) were quashed, and amounts paid via DRC-03 ordered to be refunded.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 75	Lupin Ltd. v. Union of India	Demands based on excess budgetary support relying on GSTR-2A ITC figures are vitiated if authorities fail to issue a speaking order considering the assessee’s reconciliations of ineligible or non-available ITC.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 107	Ridhi Sidhi Trading Company v. State of Rajasthan	Limitation for filing an appeal does not commence from the date of portal upload of a best judgment order if service was not effected by a recognized mode, as communication is complete only upon actual service.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 110	Nxtify Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	Provisional attachment orders issued with prior proper Commissioner approval, stated reasons in writing, and procedural compliance under Section 110(5) are valid.	Click Here	Customs Act, 1962
Section 110	Nxtify Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	Debit freeze actions on bank accounts initiated without a prior written order, recorded reasons, or timely Commissioner approval as required by Section 110(5) are invalid in law.	Click Here	Customs Act, 1962
Section 110	Nxtify Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	Extension of attachment under the proviso to Section 110(5) without pre-decisional notice or recorded reasons is unsustainable, as the law requires pre-decisional opportunity of hearing.	Click Here	Customs Act, 1962
Section 110	Nxtify Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	Provisional attachment and account debit freezes executed without prior Commissioner approval under Section 110(5) are illegal and liable to be quashed.	Click Here	Customs Act, 1962
Section 120	Sandeep Tiwari v. Ankita Gupta	Departmental appeal against penalty deletion is inadmissible if it fails to establish exceptions to monetary limits under Section 120 or record case-specific reasons overriding monetary policy.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 120	Sandeep Tiwari v. Ankita Gupta	Departmental appeal involving a disputed penalty of Rs. 2.71 lakhs is non-maintainable as it falls below the Rs. 20 lakh monetary threshold fixed under circular instructions, with no exceptions shown.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017