IMPORTANT GST CASE LAW 11.11.2025
| Section/Rule | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 6 | JSW Techno Projects Management Ltd. v. Union of India | Writ petition against a show-cause notice (SCN) challenging parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) was dismissed, as the periods involved differed and factual issues needed determination. Non-interference was justified due to the availability of alternate remedies. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
| Section 17 / Rule 86A | Rawman Metal & Alloys v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax | Blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger was ordered to be restored because the ledger balance was ‘Nil’ on the date of blocking. The court held that Rule 86A must be strictly construed and does not permit the “negative blocking” (blocking an amount that exceeds the existing credit). | CGST Act, 2017; CGST Rules, 2017 (Rule 86A) | |
| Section 17 / Rule 86A | Hindustan Steel v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax | Blocking of ITC under Rule 86A in an amount exceeding the actual balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) on the date of the order was held to be ultra vires and impermissible. The blocking order was quashed. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017; CGST Rules, 2017 (Rule 86A) |
| Section 29 | Nikita Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Commercial Taxes and State Tax | GST registration cancellation orders were unsustainable because the SCNs vaguely alleged fraud/misstatement without specifying grounds or particulars, and no effective opportunity to respond was given. Retrospective cancellation without justification was also held invalid. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 | Implex Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. State of U.P. | Ex-parte cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns was unsustainable as the notice lacked identification of the proper officer/forum for appearance, and no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted, violating natural justice. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 | Future Consumer Ltd. v. Union of India | An Order-in-Original that did not bear the signature of the passing official was held valid because it was accompanied by DRC-07 (Summary of Order) which contained the name, designation, and ward of the official. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Implex Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. State of U.P. | A writ remedy was maintainable where a registration cancellation order (which violated natural justice) led to the dismissal of the statutory appeal solely on limitation grounds. The court ordered de novo adjudication on merits. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Keva Fragrances (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat | The limitation period for filing an appeal commenced from the date of actual communication (email on 13.11.2024), not the date of passing the rectification order (01.08.2024), as the latter was not visible on the portal. Appellate rejection on limitation was unsustainable. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 112 | Annai Infra Developers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax | For an appeal against a penalty-only adjudication (no tax demand), the mandatory pre-deposit is 10% of the penalty. Adjustment of DRC-03 payments against this pre-deposit was not permitted. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 161 | JSW Techno Projects Management Ltd. v. Union of India | The rejection of a rectification application under Section 161 was upheld. Alleged errors (ignoring paid taxes, includability of free supplies) were disputed questions to be addressed in the SCN reply, not rectifiable mistakes. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 | DGAP v. Gopal Teknocon (P.) Ltd. | Anti-profiteering obligations were deemed fulfilled where a contractor, initially found to have withheld part of the incremental ITC benefit, subsequently remitted the entire outstanding amount to the recipient (oil PSU) after quantification. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 10.11.2025