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.

SC Upholds High Court’s Jurisdiction in ITC Refund Cases

Ref: Special Commissioner Zone – 11 vs. Hybon Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2025] (SC)[29-08-2025]

Section 54 | Section 92 | Section 107 | Article 226 of the Constitution

The Supreme Court, in Special Commissioner Zone – 11 vs. Hybon Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2025] (SC) [29-08-2025], dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a High Court order. The High Court had decided to hear a writ petition, despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, because the central question—whether revenue authorities possess the inherent authority to examine the admissibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) while processing a refund claim—struck at the very foundation of the orders being challenged. This ruling affirms that a High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction in GST matters where a fundamental issue concerning the jurisdictional authority of revenue officers is involved, even when an appeal mechanism exists.

SC Upholds Export of Service Classification for Student Recommendation

Ref: Union of India vs. KC Overseas Education (P.) Ltd. [2025] (SC)[25-08-2025]

Section  2(6) | Section 13 | Section 16 | Section 54

The Supreme Court, in Union of India vs. KC Overseas Education (P.) Ltd. [2025] (SC), dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court’s order, affirming that services provided by an Indian entity to foreign universities for recommending students constitute an export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017. Crucially, since the consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange and the place of supply was outside India, the assessee was deemed eligible for a refund of GST paid on such consideration. This ruling clarifies the applicability of export of service criteria for intermediary-type services in the education sector when the recipient is located outside India and payment is made in foreign currency.

Right to Rectify GSTR-1 Clerical Error

Ref: Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise vs. Deepa Traders [2025] (SC)[25-08-2025]

Section 37 | Section 39 | Rule 60 | Rule 61

The Supreme Court, in Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise vs. Deepa Traders [2025], dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the Bombay High Court’s order. This effectively upheld the High Court’s decision to permit the assessee to rectify an error in their GSTR-1 return, even after the extended due date of April 23, 2019. The Court recognized that the error was a clerical/arithmetical mistake caused by the carelessness of a part-time accountant, emphasizing that the right to correct such mistakes could not be denied where no mala fides (bad faith) were attributed to the assessee.

Timely Appeal Filing

Ref: Commissioner of GST and Central Excise vs. Core Minerals [2025] (SC)[18-08-2025]

Section 107  | Section 112  | Rule 108 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Commissioner of GST and Central Excise vs. Core Minerals [2025] confirms the strict adherence to prescribed timelines for filing appeals under GST law. The court upheld the Tribunal’s rejection of an appeal due to a substantial and unexplained gross delay of 151 days, emphasizing that extraordinary delays, which are not satisfactorily justified, provide no basis for judicial interference. This decision underscores the importance of diligence and timely compliance with statutory procedures for appeal, highlighting that the mere existence of a delay, especially if significant, will result in the forfeiture of the right to appeal if no cogent or compelling reason for the delay is provided.

Invalid Renewal of Provisional Attachment

Ref: Kesari Nandan Mobile vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [2025] (SC)[14-08-2025]

Section 83

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kesari Nandan Mobile vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [2025] establishes that the provisional attachment of property (like a bank account) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law cannot be renewed after the statutory period of one year has expired. The court held that such renewal lacks statutory backing and goes against the legislative intent of imposing a time limit on the provisional attachment. Therefore, any renewal order issued after one year is invalid, and the assessee’s bank account or property must be de-freezed immediately (forthwith).

Overlapping Proceedings

Ref: Armour Security (India) Ltd.  vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate [2025] (SC)[14-08-2025]

Section 6 |

The Supreme Court, in Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate [2025] (SC), clarified the scope of the bar against multiple proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Court ruled that the bar applies only when two departmental proceedings overlap in assessing or recovering the same tax liability/deficiency/obligation arising from a particular contravention. However, if the proceedings relate to distinct infractions, even if the resulting liability or deficiency is similar, the bar under Section 6(2)(b) does not apply. Crucially, the judgment also stipulated that actions like summons, search, or seizure do not qualify as “Initiation of proceedings” for the purpose of Section 6(2)(b); this phrase refers only to the formal commencement of adjudicatory proceedings by way of issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under the relevant statutory provisions.