IMPORTANT GST LAWS 21.11.2025
| Section of Act | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 9 | Srikanth Industries, In re | A pack of ‘Mixed Talimpu Dinusulu’ (Channa dal, Urad dal, Mustard seeds, Jeera), where each component attracts 5% GST under different HSN codes, constitutes a mixed supply. Classification must follow the item attracting the highest rate (which in this case, is 5% for all components). | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 69 | Mohd. Shamshad Saifi v. State of Haryana | Regular bail was granted to a petitioner implicated in a fake ITC racket who had admitted involvement but had been on interim bail without misuse, with no other criminal history, and no risk of absconding or tampering. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 69, 169 | Raman Kumar Chaurasia v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ludhiana | Regular bail was granted to partners of a metal scrap firm accused of wrongful ITC (about Rs. 13 crores) and creating fake entities, despite the seriousness of the offence, given the documentary nature of evidence, ongoing trial, and prolonged custody with no risk of tampering or absconding. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Om Timber Gstin 09advpa8032e2zh v. State of U.P. | An ex parte order passed under Section 74 (involving fraud/suppression) was quashed for violation of natural justice because it was not passed on the fixed hearing date and no subsequent hearing notice was communicated to the petitioner. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | S.A. Iron & Alloys (P). Ltd. v. State of U.P. | A tax, interest, and penalty demand under Section 74 (fraud-based determination) based on alleged excess production/suppressed stock (from survey/electricity consumption) was invalid because the record lacked any finding of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 74 | Bharath Ready Mix Concrete v. State Tax Officer | A tax demand for alleged suppression of turnover of Ready Mix Concrete, based solely on an assumed cement-sand-pebbles ratio without concrete evidence or proof in returns, could not be sustained. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Tvl. Arokya Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) | Appellate orders passed on merits without granting the petitioner a personal hearing after they sought an adjournment were set aside, and the Appellate Commissioner was directed to pass fresh orders after affording a due opportunity of hearing. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Barjinder Singh Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue | Where the adjudication order imposed only interest and penalty with Nil tax demand, the mandate for pre-deposit on such orders was not in existence on the date of the appellate order, making the rejection of the appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit erroneous. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 | Barjinder Singh Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue | An appellate order rejecting an appeal filed within the condonable period on the ground of non-filing of a condonation application was set aside, as records showed such an application existed. The matter was remanded for consideration of the delay. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 | R. G. Group v. Union of India | When goods were detained and penalty was paid under duress to secure release, but no reasoned order confirming the penalty was issued thereafter, the levy and collection of the penalty lacked legal authority, entitling the petitioner to a full refund of the penalty with interest. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 161 | Nabati Food (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Chennai | The existence of prima facie duplication in ITC demand (adjudicated in an earlier order) warranted reconsideration under Section 161 (Rectification of Mistakes), and the matter was remitted for fresh determination. | Click Here | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
For More :- Click IMPORTANT GST CASE LAWS 20.11.2025