IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 28.10.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Amit Kumar Basau v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato, Delhi | The embargo under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (regarding unregistered firms suing) was held inapplicable to a writ petition filed by an unregistered partnership firm under GST, as the petition enforced statutory rights under the CGST Act. The writ was thus maintainable. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 & Partnership Act, 1932 |
| Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Hithaishi Infra Machine v. Superintendent of Central Tax | Retrospective cancellation of GST registration without a prior notice specifically mentioning the retroactive effect violated the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to contest the retroactive cancellation. The order was set aside. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Altisource Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Where an exporter’s refund claim was initially rejected but subsequently allowed on appeal, statutory interest at 6% was payable for the delay beyond 60 days from the original application date, even though a re-application was made after the appeal, as the delay was attributable to the initial rejection. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Sugandha Enterprises v. Commissioner of DGST | An adjudication order culminating in a demand without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a reply or personal hearing constituted a denial of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Diganta Kumar Deka v. State of Assam | A mere summary in DRC-01 with unauthenticated attachments, and without a formal show cause notice bearing the Proper Officer’s digital authentication, did not fulfill the statutory requirements for a show cause notice, rendering the subsequent demand action unsustainable due to procedural lapse. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | J Ramesh Chand v. Union of India | Payments of Rs. 10 crore made by a GST-registered trader during a search and seizure operation, before the issuance of any Show Cause Notice (SCN) or quantification, and without acknowledgment, were deemed involuntary and in violation of Section 74(5). The recovery was illegal and the amount was ordered to be refunded with interest. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 75 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Diganta Kumar Deka v. State of Assam | The omission of the personal hearing date, time, and venue in the DRC-01 summary, and the failure to grant a statutorily mandated personal hearing before passing an adverse order in DRC-07, violated principles of natural justice, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remand. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Principal Commissioner of Central Tax GST Commissionerate v. Narasimhan Engineering Contractors (P.) Ltd. | Provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 83 for alleged ITC misuse was quashed because the department failed to show the mandatory initiation of proceedings under Chapters XII, XIV, or XV of the CGST Act; mere issuance of a summons under Section 70 was insufficient. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Principal Commissioner of Central Tax GST Commissionerate v. Narasimhan Engineering Contractors (P.) Ltd. | In an appeal against the quashing of provisional attachment, it was held that a pre-decisional hearing is not statutorily mandated under Section 83 for provisional attachment, as a post-decisional remedy under Rule 159 is available. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Wonder Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 | An appellate order pronounced after the hearing date without an enabling provision in the GST Act for such delayed pronouncement was set aside, as the State accepted the absence of such legal power. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Ashirvad Food Products (P.) Ltd. v. Additional/Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax | Where a validly registered assessee’s GST portal was inactive, preventing the e-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit for an appeal, the GSTN was directed to activate the portal, and the impugned order was stayed during the interim period. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Aarti Drugs Ltd. v. Union of India | Continuation of proceedings based on the repealed Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, which had no saving clause, was unsustainable, as the proceedings were not related to past and closed transactions. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 27.10.2025