IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 25.09.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 6 | Lotus Valley Resort v. Union of India | Where CGST officials had initially issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for a given period (A.Y. 2021-22 and 2022-23), the proceedings subsequently initiated by SGST officials for the same period were barred under the principle of non-duplication in Section 6(2)(b). The order passed by SGST officials was set aside. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 10 | Poddar Electronics Security v. Commissioner | Assessee was intimated about having opted out of the Composite Scheme and never challenged the intimation. Later, a writ petition challenging an order for non-payment of tax on the ground that the assessee never opted out was held to lack merit. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 | Shivi Kansal v. Union of India | The GST registration of a petitioner was cancelled retrospectively following the death of the sole proprietor. Held: Since the petitioner did not get an opportunity to deal with the SCN, an opportunity must be given to file a reply, and a reasoned order passed thereafter. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Raj Trading Company v. State of U.P. | In proceedings initiated after a survey, the final order under Section 74 arbitrarily fixed the evaded sales more than the evaded purchases without assigning any reason. The order was set aside for being arbitrary, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Shubhangi Gupta v. State of U.P. | Show Cause Notices and orders under Section 74 were issued against a deceased person. Following judicial precedent, the entire SCNs and impugned orders were held to be unsustainable and were set aside. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 | CJ Darcl Logistics Ltd. v. State of U.P. | An order imposing tax and penalty was passed for delay in transit. Assessee filed evidence of truck breakdown to explain the delay, but the authority disbelieved it without recording any cogent finding. Held: The impugned order could not be sustained. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 | DGAP v. Proctor & Gamble Group | The provision for imposing 18% interest on the profiteered amount came into force only with the CGST (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2019, dated 28-6-2019. Held: Where the profiteering took place much prior to this notification, interest could not be demanded on the profiteering amount. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 24.09.2025