IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 14.11.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| 65 | Varian Medical Systems International India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | A show cause notice (SCN) issued before the expiry of time granted for pre-SCN submissions violated natural justice. The audit order passed beyond the three-month limitation was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the pre-SCN stage. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 73 | VST and Sons v. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai | Assessment quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication where the DRC-01 notice was only uploaded on the portal and went unnoticed, subject to verification of the petitioner’s claim of having already recovered the disputed tax amount. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 73 | Kemexel Ecommerce (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Avato | Issuance of a subsequent SCN and demand order under Section 73 on the same grounds as a prior scrutiny that was already closed by the Proper Officer via ASMT-12 was impermissible. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 74 | Sai Sitaram Construction v. State Tax Officer | The final adjudication order was set aside and remitted for fresh proceedings because the periods stated in the SCN and the final order did not match. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 75 | Critique Communication (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato | Ex parte adjudication orders passed without granting a proper opportunity of hearing (due to the assessee’s lack of knowledge/failure to file replies) were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 75 | Tvl.Sri Balaji Sago Products v. State Tax Officer | Where the petitioner had already paid the admitted tax proposed in the SCN and only interest remained, the recovery order and bank attachment demanding the already-paid tax were unsustainable and had to be modified to cover only the interest component. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 75 | Kalyr Retail (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Delhi | Ex parte orders issued for prior periods against a concern that took over and got new registration were set aside, as the SCNs/orders escaped notice due to non-access of the old GST portal, violating natural justice. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 107 | Toshniwal Electricals (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Delhi North | A writ petition citing non-supply of relied-upon documents was not justified for bypassing the statutory appeal remedy under section 107, as the petitioner had participated in proceedings. Directed to pursue appeal with the required pre-deposit. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 107 | Reckitt Benckiser (India) (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu | A writ petition challenging a fresh assessment for a classification dispute was not maintainable as there was an efficacious alternate statutory appeal remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 107 | Ashok Ghosh v. State of West Bengal | Rejection of an appeal by the Appellate Authority solely on the grounds of limitation under section 107(4) is unsustainable, as the timeline is directory and the Appellate Authority has the power to condone the delay upon proper explanation. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 107 | Ashok Ghosh v. State of West Bengal | Delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory cap of four months from communication (even with condonation period) cannot be condoned by invoking the Limitation Act, and thus the writ petition was dismissed. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 122 | GE T & D India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise | The imposition of penalty for delayed Input Tax Credit (ITC) reversal relating to slow-moving/obsolete inputs was unsustainable as the delayed reversal yielded no undue benefit and the assessee maintained a sufficient credit balance. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 142 | Mycon Construction Ltd. v. State of Karnataka | Petitioner executing works contracts spanning pre-GST and post-GST periods is entitled to relief by segregating the work value, deducting KVAT/Service Tax for the pre-GST period, and applying GST for the post-GST period with ITC offset. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 169 | Ess Dee Industries v. Commissioner of DGST | Service of SCN uploaded on the GST portal under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab (not visible until a portal change) was defective. The resulting ex parte order was set aside for breach of natural justice and remanded for fresh adjudication. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
For More :- IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 13.11.2025