GST CASE LAWS 29.07.26
| Section / Rule | Case Law Title / Circular | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| N/A (Jurisdiction) | Circular No. 255/01/2026-GST, Dated 25-06-2026 | CBIC clarified that GST proceedings validly initiated by a transferor officer before a taxpayer’s migration remain valid. However, subsequent, implementation, and consequential actions must be managed by the transferee officer. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 5 | Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. PMJ Constructions (P.) Ltd. | Claims for reimbursement of differential GST under a pre-GST contract require strict verification of actual tax payment documents; quantification by the contractor without BBMP’s verification is improper. | Click Here | Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 9 | Renganathan & Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise | Sprinkling jaggery water, shade drying, and bulking raw tobacco does not alter its essential character or amount to “manufacture.” The product remains unmanufactured tobacco (CETH 2401) and avoids a higher cess. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 9 | T.S.R. & Co., In re | ‘Pooja Panneer’ (rose water made of deionised water and synthetic perfume without alcohol) is not an aqueous distillate. It is classified under HSN 3301 90 79 as an aqueous solution of essential oils, taxable at 18%. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 9 | Er. Roland S. Fernandes v. Government of Karnataka | The State, as a service recipient, is legally obligated to reimburse a Class-I works contractor for the differential tax burden arising from the transition from the VAT regime to the GST regime. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 11 | T.S.R. & Co., In re | Rose water does not qualify for exemption as “puja samagri.” It has multiple non-religious uses and is missing from the exhaustive notified list of exempted religious items. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 16 | Deepam Palm Dish v. State Tax Officer | Denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on general time limits is invalid if the taxpayer filed returns within a special, non-obstante cut-off period, as the special provision overrides general timelines. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 | Samadhan Seva Samiti v. Union of India | Cancelling a society’s GST registration solely via a portal upload without serving it through other prescribed modes violates natural justice. The cancellation was quashed with liberty to proceed afresh. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | World Phone Internet v. Superintendent, Range | Issuing a Form DRC-01A intimation prior to a Section 74 SCN is mandatory. The penalty at the pre-SCN initial settlement stage cannot exceed 15%, overriding any inconsistent rule language. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | B.K. Steels v. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) | The Assessing Officer overreached the scope of a court remand by issuing a second SCN and fresh order for the same year. The department must restrict adjudication to the original SCN after giving a compliant hearing. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Tvl. Punitha Antony Store v. State Tax Officer | Imposing a 100% penalty under Section 74 instead of a statutorily leviable 50% penalty under Section 74A is a material error that alters liability. It cannot be cured as a mere “misquotation” and was quashed. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 79 | VRAA and Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise | The bank account of a partner can be attached via a Section 79(1)(c)(i) garnishee notice to recover the firm’s crystallised, unchallenged tax dues, as partners are jointly and severally liable. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 97 | Waystar Properties LLP, In re | A query regarding whether a Letter of Approval or eligibility certificates can serve as alternative proof of authorized operations for SEZ services falls outside the scope of Section 97(2) and cannot be answered by the AAR. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | One E Store (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) | Dismissing an appeal as time-barred due to technical defects in the memo was unjustified where the taxpayer was diligently pursuing a rectification application. Remanded for a decision on merits. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 132 | Mukesh Jalan v. State of Assam | Bail was granted to a company director accused of wrongful ITC utilization. Since the documents were already seized and the maximum punishment is 5 years, further detention during trial served no purpose. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |