Relevant Act	Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation
CGST Act, 2017	Section 6	Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax	Action by Central authorities based on distinct intelligence of bogus transactions is not barred under Section 6(2)(b) merely because State authorities invoked Section 73, as two proceedings involved different subject matter and distinct investigative materials despite commonality of assessee.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 69	Sandeep Kumar Goel v. Union of India	Where all documents are in custody and there is no risk of absconding or evidence tampering, arrest for custodial interrogation regarding alleged fake ITC is not warranted, and anticipatory bail should be granted if the petitioner cooperates.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 73	Instakart Services (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner	Passing a single composite assessment or show-cause notice covering multiple financial years is not permissible under GST law, rendering such composite orders invalid and without jurisdiction.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 73	Nishad K.U. v. Joint Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excises	A composite order covering multiple financial years for tax demand under Section 73 is invalid and quashed, with liberty granted to authorities to issue separate notices for each relevant financial year.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 73	Ragini Communication v. Union of India	Challenge claiming non-service of statutory notice was rejected when the record established actual service of a detailed SCN; any remaining factual grievances must be raised in a statutory appeal rather than a writ.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 73	Ragini Communication v. Union of India	Unsigned or allegedly defective Form GST DRC-07 electronic summaries do not affect the jurisdiction of the main adjudication order, as summary defects alone cannot substitute the main order and must be challenged via statutory appeal.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 74	Hanumant Steel Traders v. Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax	SCNs issued under Section 74 that merely reproduce statutory phrases like “fraud” or “suppression” without disclosing underlying facts or reasons are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 74	I-NXT v. Sandeep Banga, Commissioner, Bengaluru Zone	In invoking Section 74 for ITC mismatch where tax and interest were paid prior to SCN due to an admitted oversight, penalty and fraud charges are invalid without establishing deliberate fraud or suppression.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 75	Raj Kumar Borthakur v. Joint Commissioner of Revenue	Adjudication orders confirming demands, interest, or penalties exceeding the amount explicitly proposed in the SCN are impermissible; the order was remanded to be treated as a fresh SCN.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 75	Ragini Communication v. Union of India	Allegations of denial of personal hearing are unmaintainable under writ jurisdiction when the record shows SCN service without a reply from the assessee; remedy lies in statutory appeal.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 75	Ragini Communication v. Union of India	Claims that an adjudication order exceeded the SCN under Section 75(7) require a conjoint factual examination of both documents and should be pursued before the appellate authority rather than via a writ petition.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 107	Ragini Communication v. Union of India	Merely producing tax invoices and bank payment proofs does not grant an indefeasible right to ITC when factual disputes exist regarding transaction genuineness; a statutory appeal under Section 107 is the proper remedy.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 107	Sunrise Crop Science v. Commercial Tax Officer	Where an appeal filed beyond the condonable period was dismissed, but the delay was satisfactorily explained by genuine medical ailments, the rejection order was set aside and restored for a hearing on merits.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 112	PVCON Engineering Co. v. CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal	Notice issued by SC where High Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 cannot substitute statutory remedies before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) once Tribunal appeal mechanisms are enabled.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 120	Raghvendra Vikram Singh v. Technomat Composheet (P.) Ltd.	An appeal filed by the tax department for an e-way bill penalty below the monetary threshold of ₹20 lakh was rightly dismissed at the threshold due to lack of special justification under Section 120.	Click Here
CGST Act, 2017	Section 129	Amit Tyagi v. Tata Play Ltd.	Due to a split opinion between Judicial (presuming evasion due to vehicle number mismatch) and Technical (finding no mens rea) GSTAT Members regarding Section 129 penalty, the matter was referred to the Vice President.	Click Here