GST CASE LAWS DIGEST 05.09.2026
GST CASE LAWS DIGEST 05.09.2026
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 16 | Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner | Where the assessee proved possession of invoices, receipt of goods, and payment, denial of ITC solely due to supplier’s tax default or non-reflection in GSTR-2A was unsustainable; the department must first proceed against the defaulting supplier absent collusion. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 16 | N.R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes | Denial of ITC claimed within statutory timelines on grounds of non-reflection in GSTR-2A was unsustainable, as GSTR-2A is merely facilitative and invoice-wise verification as per statutory circulars was mandatory before demanding tax. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 17 | Commissioner, CGST Appeal 1, Delhi Etc. v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. | Review petition dismissed against order holding telecommunication towers do not satisfy the test of permanency, can be dismantled/relocated, and are movable properties eligible for ITC under GST laws. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 | KPIL-JWIL Joint Venture v. State of Bihar | Rejection or withholding of a refund of excess electronic cash ledger balance citing ineligible ITC/past dues without initiating Section 54(11) proceedings or passing a reasoned order with a hearing was held unwarranted. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 69 | Venkatasubbaiah C v. Superintendent of Central Tax | Anticipatory bail granted in an alleged bogus ITC/untraceable supplier matter; post-supply supplier cancellation does not per se imply collusion, and custodial interrogation was unwarranted for compoundable offences carrying a 5-year maximum term. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | N.R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes | Demand proceedings initiated under Section 73 via audit reference without issuing a prior scrutiny notice in Form GST ASMT-10 are valid, as initiating demand proceedings is independent of return scrutiny. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner | Invoking the extended limitation period under Section 74 solely on bare allegations of fraud/misstatement without specific particulars was without jurisdiction; the notice was held time-barred under Section 73(10) and quashed. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 75 | N.R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes | An Order-in-Original passed without affording a personal hearing when an adverse decision was contemplated violates Section 75(4) and natural justice, rendering the order legally unsustainable. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Kanan International (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Where a rectification application against a refund rejection order is disposed of by a reasoned order, the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 commences from the date of the rectification order. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 169 | Rathi Cement House v. Union of India | Issuance of a single composite Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years under Section 74 read with Section 122 is beyond jurisdiction and renders the entire proceeding and consequential demand void. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 | DGAP v. Sane Retails (P.) Ltd. | Crediting equivalent GST rate reduction benefits to customers’ e-wallets satisfies anti-profiteering requirements under substance over form, regardless of internal nomenclature such as “offers and cashback.” | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 | DGAP v. Sane Retails (P.) Ltd. | Issuance of unconditional, non-expiring, and unrestricted Electronic Gift Vouchers (EGVs) equivalent to the price reduction constitutes genuine passing on of GST rate-cut benefits to consumers. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 | DGAP v. Sane Retails (P.) Ltd. | The CGST Act does not mandate a specific mechanism to pass on benefits; direct, unconditional wallet credits fulfill Section 171 compliance. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 | DGAP v. Sane Retails (P.) Ltd. | Anti-profiteering compliance was largely established via credit notes and EGVs, with contravention restricted strictly to an untraceable residual balance of Rs. 10,241 deposited into the Consumer Welfare Fund. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 | Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Vertex Homes (P.) Ltd. | DGAP methodology factoring in post-GST input material cost escalation (RMC, sand, bricks) was upheld; price rise offset the additional ITC benefit, resulting in no profiteering by the real estate developer. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |