IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 06.12.2025
| Section/Advisory | Case Law Title / Subject | Brief Summary | Citation / Source | Relevant Act |
| GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C Advisory | GSTN issues additional FAQs on GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for FY 2024-25 | The GSTN released additional FAQs to clarify reporting requirements in annual return GSTR-9 and reconciliation statement GSTR-9C. Clarifications cover RCM reporting, ineligible ITC, reversals, table-wise disclosures, non-GST purchases, and reporting by e-commerce operators. | Editorial Note / GSTN Advisory | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) |
| Section 6 | Friends Alloys v. Union of India | Only the first-in-time authority (State or Central) that initiated proceedings (inquiry/intimation) can pursue adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, as per Section 6(2)(b). Subsequent adjudication by another authority is barred, though bona fide investigatory steps (like summons) are permissible. Authorities were directed to coordinate. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 | Union of India v. Patson Papers (P.) Ltd. | The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed the SLP, upholding the High Court’s order. The assessee was entitled to a refund of unutilized ITC of Cess paid on the purchase of coal, which was used to manufacture goods exported on payment of IGST (zero-rated supply), even after receiving the IGST refund. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 & IGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 54 read with Section 77 | Amidc Automation Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs | Refund applications filed under Section 77 (tax paid under wrong head) read with Rule 89(1A) were wrongly rejected as time-barred. The court held that applications filed up to $\text{03.02.2025}$ complied with statutory timelines after applying the COVID-19 extension under Notification 13/2022. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 75 | Chaurasiya Zarda Bhandar v. State of U.P. | Where the Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposed recovery of tax only, the subsequent imposition of interest and penalty in the final assessment-cum-demand order was unsustainable as it exceeded the scope of the original notice. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 | Ashok Kumar Maganbhai Patel v. State of UP | Invocation of penalty and seizure proceedings under Section 129 was unjustified where all documents were present, and the only error was a one-digit PIN code mistake in the ‘ship-to’ address. A mere clerical error, without discrepancies or intent to evade tax, is insufficient for action. | Click Here | CGST Act, 2017 |
For More :- IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 05.12.2025