Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 10	Sunny v. Shrawan Kumar Mishra, Assistant Commissioner	Alleged diversion of goods based solely on driver statements and minor route deviations—where invoice and e-way bill specify the correct destination state—does not constitute a statutory breach, making detention and penalties legally unsustainable.	Click here	Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	Maithan Alloys Ltd. v. Dr. Jean Jesudass Palaparthy	SEZ units making zero-rated exports are entitled to claim a refund of unutilised Input Service Distributor (ISD) ITC; rejection without providing supporting evidence or a hearing violates natural justice.	Click here	Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	M.K. Enterprises v. Commissioner of State GST	Reversing ITC with interest via DRC-03 after 180 days during an inquiry constitutes valid statutory compliance; delay alone without proven intent does not justify fraud-based demands or penalties under Section 74.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 34	Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi	For B2C passenger tickets, issuing credit notes for cancellation refunds satisfies Section 34(2) without requiring recipient ITC reversal, as the condition enforcing reversal was made prospective from October 1, 2025.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 50	Aditi Enterprises v. Brajesh Singh Yadav	Omission of B2C sales in monthly returns due to clerical error, subsequently rectified with full tax payment prior to notice, requires interest under Section 50 to be computed strictly on net cash liability month-wise rather than as a blanket demand.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 54	Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi	Refund applications for ticket cancellations processed via IATA BSP during COVID-19 under ‘Excess payment of tax’ are allowable; establishing a one-to-one correlation of refunds to passengers negates claims of unjust enrichment.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 68	Vijay Pal Singh v. Himanshu Verma, JC (IT)	Where goods in transit are substantially undeclared and lack contemporaneous invoices, bilties, or valid e-way bills, statutory obligations are breached, upholding penalty and seizure under GST provisions.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73	Aditi Enterprises v. Brajesh Singh Yadav	Penalties under Section 73 are unsustainable where an assessee omits sales due to clerical errors but records them in books, discloses them in annual returns, and voluntarily pays the full tax prior to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 74	M.K. Enterprises v. Commissioner of State GST	Purchasing scrap supported by valid tax invoices, e-way bills, weighment slips, and bank payments cannot be branded fraudulent or denied ITC merely because the supplier was subsequently found non-existent, absent proof of collusion.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 107	Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anurag Bharti	Appellate orders that are cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without considering valid adjournment requests or statutory requirements under Section 107 are illegal and liable to be remanded for fresh adjudication.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 120	Sonia Sharma v. Nayak Engineering	Departmental appeals before the Tribunal are precluded under Section 120 policy guidelines if the aggregate disputed tax/cess (excluding interest and penalty) falls below the mandatory monetary limit of ₹20 Lakhs.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 120	Assistant Commissioner Ms-4 Gzb v. Ram Prashad Swami	The ₹20 Lakhs monetary threshold policy for departmental appeals before the Tribunal applies equally to penalty-only cases; appeals below this threshold are inadmissible.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 129	Vijay Pal Singh v. Himanshu Verma, JC (IT)	Seizure and penalties under Section 129 are legally justified when goods are transported without requisite invoices, bilties, or e-way bills at the point of interception, and delayed post-interception documents fail to prove bona fide transit.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 129	Sunny v. Shrawan Kumar Mishra, Assistant Commissioner	Presumptive interception for route deviation or driver statements without corroborative evidence or proof of unloading does not establish mens rea or statutory contravention; penalty under Section 129(3) cannot be imposed.	Click here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017