GST Case Laws Updated 2025

Judicial Precedent on E-way Bill Errors

Ref: Additional Commissioner vs. Zhuzoor Infratech (P.) Ltd. [2025] (SC) [08-09-2025]

Section 129 | Section 130 | Rule 138

The Supreme Court has taken a pragmatic view regarding minor/technical discrepancies in e-way bills. It upheld the principle that a simple technical error in the shipping address (especially if auto-populated) does not constitute a violation serious enough to warrant seizure or penalty under Section 129/130, provided the goods themselves are correctly accounted for and no intent to evade tax is established.

Writ Petition Maintainability in Cases of Fraudulent ITC

Ref: MHJ Metaltechs (P.) Ltd. vs. Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South [2025] (SC)[08-09-2025]

Section 16 | Section 74 | Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The Supreme Court, in MHJ Metaltechs (P.) Ltd. vs. Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South [2025] (SC), dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP), thereby upholding a High Court’s ruling that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against an order in cases involving the fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The decision reinforces the principle that where complex factual disputes concerning fraud are involved, or where an adequate statutory alternative remedy exists—such as an appeal mechanism under the GST Act—the High Court will typically decline to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Stock Discrepancy (Section 130 vs. Sections 73/74)

Ref: Additional Commissioner Grade-2 vs. Dayal Product [2025] (SC)[01-09-2025]

Section 73 | Section 74 | Section 130.

The Supreme Court, in Additional Commissioner Grade-2 vs. Dayal Product [2025] (SC), dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court’s ruling that an order for confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a discrepancy in stock found during a survey at a registered dealer’s premises. The Court affirmed that in such a situation, where the discrepancy suggests an underlying issue with the turnover or tax payable, the proper procedure is to initiate demand and recovery proceedings under Section 73 (determination of tax not paid or short paid without fraud) or Section 74 (determination of tax not paid or short paid with fraud) of the Act.