| CGST / APGST Act |
Sec. 160 / 169 |
Subbaiah Gas Agency vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax |
An assessment order lacking the Assessing Officer’s signature is invalid. Mere service via uploading it on the GST portal does not cure this fundamental defect. |
Click Here |
| CGST / GGST Act |
Sec. 129 / 130 |
Vijay Laxmi Trading vs. State of Gujarat |
A writ petition challenging the confiscation of goods and vehicles for an expired e-way bill is not maintainable if the taxpayer voluntarily paid the tax and penalty without protest. |
Click Here |
| IGST / CGST Act |
Sec. 11 / Notf 41/2017 |
Time Technoplast Ltd. vs. Union of India |
Concessional GST rate of 0.1% for merchant exporters is denied if the manufacturer delivers goods to a third party for filling rather than directly to the port or a registered warehouse. |
Click Here |
| CGST / MGST Act |
Sec. 7 / Schedule II |
Swastik Processor vs. Union of India |
The High Court granted interim protection staying recovery proceedings on the assignment/transfer of leasehold rights, as the identical issue of its taxability is pending before the Supreme Court. |
Click Here |
| CGST / BGST Act |
Sec. 74 |
Manju Devi Agarwal vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs |
A taxpayer is estopped from challenging the invocation of fraud and suppression provisions via a writ petition if they previously admitted liability and paid part of the tax and penalty. |
Click Here |
| CGST / MGST Act |
Sec. 73 / 74 |
Vidarbha Nickel Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGTS & Central Excise |
Issuing a consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) for multiple financial years is impermissible. The GST framework mandates year-wise notices to protect the separate right of defense and limitation periods. |
Click Here |
| CGST / APGST Act |
Sec. 79 |
V.V.S. Enterprises vs. State of Andhra Pradesh |
A recovery notice sent directly to a bank under section 79(1)(c) is valid without prior administrative authorization once the underlying assessment order has attained finality. |
Click Here |
| CGST Act |
Sec. 75(4) |
Parv Alloys & Metals vs. Union of India |
An adjudication order passed without granting a mandatory personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice and must be set aside, even if the taxpayer failed to file a written reply. |
Click Here |
| CGST / KSGST Act |
Sec. 7 / 98 / 101 |
Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. Union of India |
The matter was remanded because the AAR/AAAR failed to examine whether land conversion fees fundamentally constituted a “supply” under Section 7(1) before jumping to exclusions under Section 7(2). |
Click Here |
| UTGST Act (Chandigarh) |
Notf 14/2018-UT Tax |
Ministry of Finance (Govt. of India) |
Government notification appointing Shri Gaurav Kumar Jain and Shri Pradhuman Singh as the new members of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Chandigarh. |
Notification No. 2/2026-Union Territory Tax (Dt. 13-05-2026) |
| CGST / APGST Act |
Sec. 62(2) |
Shah and Shahi Foreign Trade (OPC) (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner |
An assessment order passed against a non-filer under Section 62 is deemed withdrawn if a valid return along with tax, interest, and late fees is filed within the statutory timeframe, nullifying any recovery or attachments. |
Click Here |
