IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 18.11.2025
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 16 / Rule 86A | Abhishek Goyal v. Union of India | Negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) is impermissible. Rule 86A only allows a “freeze” on the actually available credit. The department cannot create a negative balance to restrict future ITC utilization. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 50 (Interest) | Bangalore International Airport Ltd. v. Union of India | Assessee is not liable to pay interest on the portion of tax discharged via Electronic Credit Ledger, as that credit was already available. Interest is only compensatory for the delay in the “cash” portion of tax. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 50 (Interest) | Bangalore International Airport Ltd. v. Union of India | No interest is leviable on the cash portion of tax if it was deposited on or before the due date, even if the GSTR-3B return itself was filed late. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 73 (Demand) | Chandra Enterprises v. Deputy State Tax Officer | Demand order was quashed where the assessee had already rectified a reporting mistake and paid the tax with interest before the issuance of the notice. Section 73 proceedings cannot continue if tax is paid suo motu before the SCN. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 74 (Demand – Fraud) | MRF Ltd. v. Addl. Director DGGI Delhi Zonal Unit | Invocation of Section 74 (fraud/suppression) was quashed. Since the assessee voluntarily disclosed a rate confusion and paid dues prior to any investigation, there was no basis for alleging “intent to evade tax.” | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 107 (Appeals) | Arup Kumar Chatterjee v. Asst. Comm. of State Tax | The Appellate Authority cannot waive the mandatory 10% pre-deposit. However, if the department has already recovered more than 10% of the disputed tax, the appeal must be heard on its merits without seeking further deposit. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 161 (Rectification) | Tvl.Anand Transports v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | A writ against an original demand order is not maintainable once a rectification order has been passed, as the rectification order supersedes the original. The assessee must challenge the new order or the rejection of further rectification. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 161 (Rectification) | Tvl.Anand Transports v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | Matter was remanded for re-adjudication because the authority confirmed a totally fresh demand during rectification proceedings without issuing a proper proposal or hearing the assessee (violation of natural justice). | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 16.12.25