IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 12.11.2025
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 9 – Levy & Collection | V.S. Trading Company (Perumal Vasudevan), In re | Product traded as ‘tapioca flour’ was found to be fibrous ‘thippi’ residue from starch extraction. It is classified as starch manufacture residue (animal feed) under Heading 2303 1000 and is thus attracting GST, regardless of the trade name. | Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 11 – Exemption | V.S. Trading Company (Perumal Vasudevan), In re | Since the product was correctly classified as ‘thippi’ residue (animal feed) under Heading 2303 1000 (taxable) and not manioc flour, the exemption under entry 78 was not available. Supplier must discharge GST and obtain registration. | Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 22 – Registration – Liability | V.S. Trading Company (Perumal Vasudevan), In re | Due to the correct classification of the product under Heading 2303 1000 (taxable), the applicant becomes liable for registration if the turnover threshold is crossed, as liability to pay tax on taxable supplies arises. | Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 29 – Cancellation of Registration | Tvl. Ponnian Jaya Singh v. Assistant Commissioner, Kuzhithurai | Final order cancelling registration alleging tax evasion exceeding the show cause notice amount was unjustified. Cancellation for non-filing of returns for a period less than six months was also held unsustainable. | Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 69 – Power to Arrest | Union of India v. Shashi Kumar Choudhary | Arrests alleging fraudulent ITC availment were found legal, supported by memos, proper authorization, and cogent grounds. Alleged procedural lapses (like lack of written grounds to relatives and BNSS references) did not vitiate the arrest, as relatives were aware of the grounds. Bail orders were set aside. | Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 73 – Demand & Recovery | Emmanuel Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary to the Govt. Finance Department | Where a common show cause notice was issued for two assessment periods and resulted in multiple assessment orders, the orders were set aside with liberty to issue fresh, separate notices. | Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 73 – Demand & Recovery | Jagjit Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. | Adjudication and appellate orders were unsustainable because the adjudication order was passed without fixing a date for personal hearing, denying the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Matter remitted for fresh decision after granting a hearing. | Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 132 – Offences – Punishments | Dipanshu Anand v. Principal Commissioner, Central GST, Ludhiana | Petitioner accused of availing fraudulent ITC (bogus invoices of{Rs 48.92} crores, evasion of {Rs 7.46} crores) was granted regular bail. Continued detention was held unjustified as he was already in custody, no custodial interrogation was needed, and evidence was documentary. | Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 169 – Service of Notice | Calyx Coronation v. State Tax Officer | Ex parte order was set aside where notices and communications were only uploaded on the portal without furnishing the original show cause notice or affording a personal hearing. Exclusive portal service without exploring alternative statutory modes resulted in denial of opportunity. | Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sec 171 – Anti-Profiteering | DGAP v. Nirma Ltd. | The DGAP’s report, which concluded after several investigations that the respondent had not contravened any provisions of Section 171 (Anti-Profiteering), was accepted. | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAW 11.11.2025