IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 01.12.25
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| 54 | Shah Paperplast Industries Ltd. v. Union of India | Refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a 100% EOU was restored because the unit made actual zero-rated exports, making CBIC Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST inapplicable. Withdrawal of the refund was quashed. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 73 | Sunita Rani v. Union of India | Impugned demand order was set aside and remanded as the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was only uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices’ tab on the GST portal, leading to a violation of proper notice/hearing opportunity. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 73 | MS Markex Branding Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax | Matter was remanded (subject to payment of ₹ 25,000) as the petitioner was unaware of the SCN and order, and did not get a proper hearing opportunity. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 73 | Sibu Prasad Praharaj v. Commercial Tax Officer | Ex parte order was set aside and remanded due to the petitioner’s bona fide reason for failing to reply to the SCN (serious illness of father/inability to check portal). Matter to be reconsidered after the assessee submits a reply. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 73 | Chauhan Kirana Trading v. Government of NCT of Delhi | Impugned order was set aside and remanded as the SCN was only uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices and orders tab’ on the GST portal and the order was passed without hearing the assessee. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 74 | Varanasi Sangam Expressway (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of State Tax | An SCN under Section 74 was quashed because it lacked specific allegations or material to indicate fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax, meaning the statutory ingredients for invoking the section were absent. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 74 | Devansh Wire and Cables (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi – East | Assessee challenging an order confirming demand on the ground that the SCN was issued for multiple years was relegated to the appellate remedy as the issue was settled in a prior case. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 75 | Classic International v. Commissioner Delhi goods and services tax | Ex parte order was set aside for breach of natural justice as the SCN and reminders were only uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab on the portal, and the petitioner was unaware. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 122 | Devender Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax | In the case of fake, non-existent, and fraudulent firms, the ‘taxable person’ for the purpose of penalty would be the person who created and used such firms for the availment of ITC. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 129 | Kamla Machines v. State of UP | Confiscation of goods and conveyances could not be sustained where the truck driver fell ill and the journey could not be completed within the e-way bill’s validity period, as there was no material to show intention to evade tax. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 168A | Sunita Rani v. Union of India | Validity of CBIC Notification Nos. 56/2023-CT and 9/2023-CT extending the period of limitation was left open as the matter was already under challenge before the Supreme Court. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 168A | Chauhan Kirana Trading v. Government of NCT of Delhi | Challenge to Notification No. 56/2023-CT extending the period of limitation for adjudication would be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, where the validity was pending consideration. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 168A | MS Markex Branding Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax | Validity of CBIC Notification No. 56/2023-CT was left open as the matter was already under challenge before the Supreme Court. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 29.11.2025