IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 20.11.2025

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 9	Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., In re	Minimum Guaranteed Off-take (MGO) charges retained for short-lifting of natural gas constitute compensation for breach of contract, not consideration for tolerating an act. Hence, these MGO charges are not liable to GST.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)
Section 17	Arraycom (India) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat	Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed on insurance policies covering stock, premises, and equipment (not vehicles) cannot be blocked under the provision related to motor vehicle insurance. Blocking such credit was untenable.	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 39	Ummed Engineering and Construction v. State of Rajasthan	Belated filing of GSTR-3B (after the bid deadline) constitutes a material deviation from mandatory tender conditions requiring the latest GSTR-3B with the bid. This made the petitioner ineligible, validating the non-responsive declaration.	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 73	AIMS Engineers v. Deputy State Tax Officer	While the assessee prolonged litigation by filing rectification applications under section 161 (limited scope), since the assessee was not heard in person before the impugned order was passed, the matter was remanded for readjudication.	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 75	SPMS Abrasive v. Union of India	Where the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply was filed to the Show Cause Notice, the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority.	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 107	Wintage Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	An amount previously deposited under protest via DRC-03 during an investigation, if not yet appropriated, can be adjusted towards the mandatory 10% pre-deposit required for filing an appeal.	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 107	VMG Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Delhi North	In cases involving complex facts and evidence of GST fraud, writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised. The petitioner was relegated to the remedy of statutory appeal under section 107.	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 107	Tvl. Nagaraj Sellappan v. State Tax Officer, Namakkal	Where an ex parte order was passed, the petitioner was allowed to file an appeal challenging the penalty (on admitted tax) and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits without reference to the limitation period.	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 129	Sen Traders v. State of U.P.	Where detained goods were accompanied by an e-way bill and tax invoice disclosing all particulars, the penalty must be computed only under Section 129(1)(a) (based on transaction value) and not $129(1)(b)$ (erroneous computation).	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 129	Sachin Jain v. State of U.P.	Penalty imposed for the expiry of an e-way bill was set aside where the expiry was due to city entry restrictions during the Shravan Kanwar Yatra, and there was no evidence of intent to evade tax.	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 160	ADI Lakshmi Cement and Steel Traders v. Superintendent of Central Tax	For the assessment period prior to 15-10-2020, the un-amended Rule 142(1A) was applicable, making the non-issuance of notice under Rule 142(1A) mandatory, and thus rendering the subsequent assessment order invalid.	Click Here	CGST Act
Section 168A	SPMS Abrasive v. Union of India	A challenge to CBIC Notifications (Nos. 9/2023-CT & 56/2023-CT) which extended the period of limitation for adjudication was made subject to the outcome of pending challenges before the Supreme Court and the High Court.	Click Here	CGST Act

For More :- IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 19.11.2025