GST CASE LAWS 29.5.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| Integrated GST Act, 2017 | Section 2 | Fateh Education Consulting (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner | Click Here | Marketing and recruitment support services provided directly to foreign universities (without authority to bind them or collect student fees) are not “intermediary” services. IGST refund on export of services is allowable with statutory interest. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 9 | M S Ajab Singh and Co. v. Commissioner of CGST | Click Here | Writ petition entertained to determine whether the Delhi Jal Board qualifies as a “local authority” for a 12% GST rate on works contract services; SCN proceedings stayed pending adjudication. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 16 | Carefil Technology v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise | Click Here | Retrospective legislative amendments to Section 16 cure ITC demands that were based solely on the grounds of belated availment under the limitation clause since the inception of the GST regime. Remanded for merits review. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 29 | Hem Chandra Sharma v. State of Assam | Click Here | Cancellation of registration based on a vague SCN that failed to specify the default period or provide clear reasons is illegal and violates statutory requirements, even if the assessee failed to reply. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 29 | Mahendra Gurung v. Union of India | Click Here | Registration cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months can be restored by the proper officer under Rule 22(4) upon the petitioner’s commitment to file pending returns and pay all dues, interest, and late fees. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 54 | Zoetis Pharmaceutical Research (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | Click Here | Non-speaking orders rejecting ITC refunds on zero-rated R&D services, where a corrigendum arbitrarily altered the rejection basis to treat the petitioner as an “agent,” were quashed and sent back for readjudication. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 65 | Ess Ess Enterprises and Electronics FF v. Union of India | Click Here | Post-audit adjudication and recovery initiated by a State Tax Officer (STO) are valid under the statutory audit mandate once unpaid tax or wrongful credit is detected and the registered person is put on notice. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 73 | Ess Ess Enterprises and Electronics FF v. Union of India | Click Here | An ex parte demand order is valid if the assessee was given sufficient opportunity (30 days plus a 13-day extension) but failed to attend the scheduled hearing, file a reply, or seek an adjournment. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 73 | Zoetis Pharmaceutical Research (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | Click Here | SCNs issued for recovering alleged erroneous ITC refunds without considering the assessee’s request for time and proposed submissions violate the principles of natural justice; matter remanded. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 73 | Janardan Panda v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax & GST | Click Here | Passing an order on pre-mining royalty charges by presuming no reply was filed, and failing to provide a personal hearing despite an explicit request and subsequent rectification application, violates natural justice. Orders quashed. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 74 | Bharat Kumar Agarwal v. Joint Commissioner (AE) | Click Here | Where a composite DRC-07 was issued jointly against a company and its unregistered Managing Director, the revenue must issue separate revised DRC-07 forms via temporary registration to enable independent statutory appeals. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 74 | Commissioner of Central Tax v. Chimney Hills Education Society | Click Here | A consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years is legally valid, as demand provisions allow notice for “any period” and do not mandate fiscal-year-wise separation, causing no prejudice to the assessee. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 74 | Commissioner of Central Tax v. Chimney Hills Education Society | Click Here | In a multi-year consolidated SCN, periods must be tested independently for limitation. The extended period for “fraud” requires specific evidence, whereas non-fraud periods fall under the shorter limitation window. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 83 | Stunning Dentistry v. Union of India | Click Here | Provisional bank account attachment conditionally lifted during an ongoing investigation upon the petitioner depositing a Rs. 1.5 crore fixed deposit with the Registrar General to safeguard revenue interests. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 107 | Ess Ess Enterprises and Electronics FF v. Union of India | Click Here | A writ petition challenging an SCN or demand order is not maintainable if no exceptional grounds (like a patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of fundamental rights) are shown; statutory appeal is the proper remedy. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 113 | DG Anti Profiteering v. LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd. | Click Here | Rectification application allowed to amend a final order that omitted GST on the per sq. ft. anti-profiteering benefit for flat owners, clarifying computation to include 12% (totaling Rs. 86.12 per sq. ft.). |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 140 | Zakir Steel v. Joint Commissioner (insitu) | Click Here | Denial of transitioned ITC on closing stock (via TRAN-01) without cross-verifying subsequent GST returns or GSTR-2A is unsustainable. Physical stock availability on the appointed day must be factually compared. |
| Central GST Act, 2017 | Section 160 | Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner | Click Here | Assessment orders lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) carry a sufficient jurisdictional irregularity to invalidate the assessment. Orders set aside subject to an appropriate deposit. |