IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 13.10.2025
| Section/Rule | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Rule 86A | DDS Jewels (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra | An order blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger was set aside as it was passed before the expiry of the time limit in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and without considering the timely reply, violating natural justice. | Click Here | Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act |
| 16(2)(c) | Globe Mobility (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India | A writ petition challenging the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to the supplier’s non-payment of GST was not entertained as the alternate remedy of appeal to the GST Tribunal (though not yet constituted) exists. | Click Here | Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act |
| Assessment | Gayathri Builder vs. Commercial Tax Officer | An ex-parte assessment order passed due to non-response to SCN was quashed and the matter remanded, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. | Click Here | Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act |
| Recovery/Investigation | Murshidabad Flour Mill (P.) Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner, CGST | An amount paid during investigation under compulsion was directed to be treated as a deposit subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, and the balance demand under the impugned order was stayed. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Rule 86A | Rithwik Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India | An order blocking the credit ledger under Rule 86A was set aside as no reasons were recorded and no post-decisional hearing was provided. Matter remanded for fresh order after hearing. | Click Here | Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act |
| Appeal Procedure | Sanjeet Kumar Bhagat vs. Commissioner of State Tax | The rejection of a GST appeal solely for non-filing of a certified copy was set aside as a hyper-technical approach in tax matters, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits. | Click Here | Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act |
| 129(3), Rule 45, Rule 55 | Usha Wire Netting vs. State of UP | Detention and penalty under section 129(3) were upheld as the goods for job work were moved without the required documents (job work challan and e-way bill) at the time of interception. | Click Here | Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 09.10.2025