IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 05.12.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| 29 | Anil Art and Craft v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Cancellation of registration via a non-speaking order (stating reply was unsatisfactory without reasons) violates principles of natural justice. Order set aside. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 29 | Florida Solvent (P) Ltd v. Superintendent Range II Thane | Interim suspension of registration for two months based on allegations of wrongful ITC was held to be proportional and within jurisdiction; challenge on these grounds rejected. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 29 | Florida Solvent (P) Ltd v. Superintendent Range II Thane | Cancellation order passed without reasons, despite the assessee filing a comprehensive reply and attending a hearing, violates natural justice. Order quashed and remanded. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 73 | Gangotri Engineers v. State of U.P. | Adjudication order vitiated where no notice of hearing was provided prior to the order, despite dates being fixed in the SCN. Demand and appellate orders quashed. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 83 | A1 Adil Traders v. Union of India | Provisional attachment of bank accounts cannot continue beyond the statutory limit of one year under Section 83(2). Attachment ordered to be lifted. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 97 | Crux Prestressing Systems (P.) Ltd., In re | Advance Ruling application is not maintainable for queries regarding procedural compliance (documents for movement of goods) rather than tax liability, classification, or ITC. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 107 | Simla Gomti Pan Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax U.P. | Writ petition dismissed as misconceived where the assessee attempted to bypass the mandatory 10% pre-deposit required for filing an appeal. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 129 | Auto Industries v. State of U.P. | Penalty for non-updation of Part-B of e-way bill quashed where the error was a technical glitch and no intent to evade tax (mens rea) was found. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 129 | Aysha Builders and Suppliers v. State of U.P. | Penalty upheld where e-way bill was generated after interception (post-detention). Subsequent production does not cure the deficiency at the time of movement. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| 129 | Anish Transport Company v. State of U.P. | Seizure proceedings against a transporter quashed where the shortfall in goods was due to the consignor’s human error, and the transporter had no role in the sale/purchase. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
For More :- IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 04.12.2025