IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 29.12.2025
| Relevant Act | Section / Rule | Case Law Title / Order | Brief Summary | Citation / Source |
| CGST Act, 2017 | GSTAT (Bench Allocation) | Order No. 03/2025 | The Government issued an Office Order allocating benches to Technical and Judicial Members of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) across India. Members are directed to join their benches on 21.01.2026. | ORDER NO. 03_2025 (1) |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 9 (Levy) | Kapil Madan v. Union of India | Delhi HC observed that prima facie no reason exists why air purifiers and HEPA filters (recognized as medical devices) should not attract 5% GST. The GST Council was directed to urgently consider lowering the rate from 18% to 5%. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 9 (Levy) | Vishalsinh Mahendrasinh Atodariya, In re | Supply of waste processing machinery to a local authority (Nagarpalika) is a supply of goods (taxable at 18%), not a composite supply of goods and services, as the dominant intention is the transfer of the machine itself. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 54 / Rule 96(10) | A R Sulphonates (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | [Key Ruling] Refund orders relying on Rule 96(10) (restriction on refund for inverted duty structure/EOU) were quashed. Courts held that since the rule was repealed without a saving clause, it is treated as if it never existed for pending proceedings. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 54 / Rule 96(10) | Kelvion India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Where an SCN alleged violation of Rule 96(10), the matter was remanded for fresh decision because the rule has been omitted without provisions for saving pending proceedings. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 73 (Demand) | TVL.Musthafa & Co. v. Deputy State Tax Officer II | Assessment order confirming demand was set aside for re-adjudication because a subsequent order by a State Tax Officer had dropped the demand for the same period, creating an overlapping/contradictory situation. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 75 (General Demand) | Mi Industries India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Adjudication order was set aside as the demand created was far in excess of the amount proposed in the SCN. Additionally, adverse material was not confronted to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 75 (General Demand) | Tvl.Nimo Productions v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | Where the demand for excess ITC suffered from duplication (same amount taxed under non-reconciliation and limitation grounds), the petitioner was permitted to deposit 25% of the disputed tax for a fresh adjudication on merits. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 107 (Appeals) | MD Signs v. Deputy State Tax Officer | Despite the limitation for appeal expiring, the case was remitted back for a fresh order on merits, subject to the assessee depositing 25% of the disputed tax (an equitable relief trend seen in Madras HC). | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 129 (Detention) | Agrim Wholesale (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. | No penalty under Section 129(3) for non-filling of Part-B of the e-way bill if it was due to a technical glitch and there was no intention to evade tax. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 140 (Transitional Credit) | Sendoz Commercials (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India regarding a writ petition seeking transition/adjustment of accumulated Compensation Cess credit against GST liability for stock held on the date of the cess’s abolition. | Click Here |
| CGST Rules, 2017 | Rule 142 (Notice) | Manpar Exim Inc v. Additional Director, DGGI | Pre-SCN consultation is NOT mandatory for the issuance of a Show Cause Notice after the amendment brought by Notification No. 79/2022-Central Tax (dated 15-10-2022). | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 27.12.2025