GST CASE LAWS 21.10.2026 Archives - Tax Heal https://www.taxheal.com/tag/gst-case-laws-21-10-2026 Complete Guide for Income Tax and GST in India Wed, 21 Oct 2026 12:22:07 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3 GST CASE LAWS 21.10.2026 https://www.taxheal.com/gst-case-laws-21-10-2026.html Wed, 21 Oct 2026 12:22:07 +0000 https://www.taxheal.com/?p=142809 GST CASE LAWS 21.10.2026   Here is the structured table containing the Relevant Act, Section, Case Law Title, Citation, and Brief Summary extracted from your text: Relevant Act Section Case Law Title Citation Brief Summary Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 9 Feel Good Hospitality (P.) Ltd., In re Click here Where the… Read More »

]]> GST CASE LAWS 21.10.2026

 

Here is the structured table containing the Relevant Act, Section, Case Law Title, Citation, and Brief Summary extracted from your text:
Relevant Act Section Case Law Title Citation Brief Summary
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 9 Feel Good Hospitality (P.) Ltd., In re Click here Where the applicant provided no pure agency agreement to support billing for reimbursements and facilitation fees on hotel bookings, the applicant failed pure agent test, making the entire amount charged to end-customers liable to GST without Rule 33 valuation exclusion.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 11 Nagaur Mukundgarh Highways (P.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Click here Notice issued in SLP against the High Court order holding that Entry 23A exemption (Notification 12/2017) applies only to access services under Heading 9967 and does not cover construction works contracts paid via annuity payments.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 15 Feel Good Hospitality (P.) Ltd., In re Click here The applicant could not exclude hotel accommodation charges from the taxable value under Rule 33 as a pure agent because invoices were in its own name and it lacked contractual authorization to act as a pure agent.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 16 Balaji Studio v. State Tax Officer Click here ITC denial on grounds of delayed filing was quashed since GSTR-3B returns were filed within the extended statutory timeline allowed for availing ITC.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 16 Vintek Control Systems v. Commissioner of Central Tax Click here Under Section 16(2)(c), proof of payment to the supplier alone does not entitle the recipient to ITC; the recipient must prove tax remittance by the supplier once challenged.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 68 Vintek Control Systems v. Commissioner of Central Tax Click here A claim of genuine interstate purchase failed due to the absence of mandatory e-way bills, lack of transport records, and discrepancies in HSN codes and origin between supplier and export documents.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73 Vintek Control Systems v. Commissioner of Central Tax Click here Demand for tax, 18% interest, and statutory minimum penalty under Section 73(9) read with Section 122(2)(a) was upheld for excess ITC and unproven supplier tax payment, with liberty to re-avail credit upon proof of payment.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73 Surya Business (P.) Ltd. v. State of Assam Click here A challenge against a SCN alleging insufficient notice period failed because, excluding the date of issuance, three full calendar months intervened before the terminal order date, satisfying statutory requirements.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 74 Jyoti Petro Chem Industries v. State of Rajasthan Click Here A writ petition challenging SCNs for wrongful ITC availment was dismissed as premature, as proper statutory remedies via adjudication and appeal were available under GST law.
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 Rule 97A PCK Cotton (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India Click here Exporter permitted to manually file a consolidated refund application for accumulated ITC for Dec 2017–Feb 2018 due to lack of online consolidated application facility, subject to adjudication on merits.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 103 Nagaur Mukundgarh Highways (P.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Click here Notice issued in SLP against HC order upholding circular clarifying that deferred annuity for Heading 9954 construction services is not exempt under Entry 23A of Notification 12/2017, validating GST recovery.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 107 Manoj Spares and Service Center v. State of Rajasthan Click here Dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds was invalid because the registration cancellation order was not effectively communicated as per statutory modes; limitation period did not commence.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 120 Gyanendra Singh v. Shree Jee Metals Click here Departmental appeal before GSTAT is non-maintainable under Section 120 when the disputed amount relates solely to a penalty below the monetary threshold of ₹20 lakh and no statutory exception is proved.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 120 Uttam Kumar Tiwari v. R S Metals Click here Departmental appeal against an order setting aside penalty and fine was dismissed at the threshold as the combined disputed amount was below the monetary limit and no exception was substantiated.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 155 Vintek Control Systems v. Commissioner of Central Tax Click here Where ITC mismatch occurred, failure of the taxpayer to produce supplier certificates and GSTR-3B meant the burden of proof under Section 155 was not discharged, sustaining the demand under Section 16(2)(c).
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran Click here Bail granted by HC in a ₹43.08 crore GST fraud case was set aside for fresh consideration due to suppression of material facts, abuse of process, and parallel forum shopping by the respondent.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran Click here HC order disposing of a criminal petition was set aside due to denial of effective hearing, and the matter was revived for fresh consideration while keeping respondent on interim bail.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran Click here Listing a bail petition during winter vacation without adequate notice was held improper; Supreme Court directed registries to ordinarily exclude vacation periods to prevent prejudice.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran Click here Pursuing simultaneous bail applications in the Sessions Court, writ petitions for quashing arrest, and urgent High Court listings without disclosing rejections constitutes forum shopping and abuse of process.
]]>