IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 16.03.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title / Authority | Brief Summary | Citation |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 2 | ACME Cleantech Solution v. UOI | The Rajasthan High Court stayed SCNs during a writ pendency due to a prima facie question regarding the validity of delegated power used to issue summons. | [2026] 184 taxmann.com 114 (Rajasthan) |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 9 | Acer India (P.) Ltd., In re | Interactive Flat Panel Displays (IFPDs) are classified as “Monitors” (HSN 8528) rather than “Data Processing Machines” (HSN 8471) because their principal function is display. | [2026] 184 taxmann.com 113 (AAAR-TN) |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 29 | Deepak Construction Co. v. State of Assam | Cancellation for non-filing can be dropped if the petitioner undertakes to pay all taxes, interest, and late fees, per the proviso to Rule 22(4). | [2026] 184 taxmann.com 188 (Gauhati) |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 51 | Indian Institute of Management, In re | An IIM is a “specified person” liable for TDS under GST. The Rs 2.5 lakh threshold applies to the total value of each individual contract (excluding GST). | [2026] 184 taxmann.com 46 (AAR-Gujarat) |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 54 | Adani Wilmar Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner | A CBIC Circular cannot retrospectively curtail a statutory right to claim a refund of accumulated ITC if the application is filed within the two-year legal limit. | [2026] 184 taxmann.com 115 (Calcutta) |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 73 | Chemistry Design (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner | An order passed post-amalgamation without a hearing was set aside, allowing the petitioner to contest the demand afresh upon depositing the entire liability. | [2026] 184 taxmann.com 186 (Delhi) |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 122 | Alokadci Holdings v. Commissioner | Penalty for fake invoices and ITC fraud was upheld; a challenge to the Joint Commissioner’s jurisdiction failed as the officer was deemed “proper” per Circular 254/11/2025. | [2026] 184 taxmann.com 116 (Telangana) |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 132 | Hari Shankar Sharma v. Union of India | Bail was rejected for directors involved in creating inter-linked entities for ITC fraud, as these are considered serious economic crimes requiring stricter standards. | [2026] 184 taxmann.com 86 (Allahabad) |
For More :- IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 13.03.2026