GST Case Laws: 10 GST Case Judgements That Every Taxpayer Should Know About
- Dipali Waghmode
- Sep 9
- 9 min read
The law governing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is changing annually. When interpreting the GST laws, many taxpayers may clash with the tax authorities due to the frequent changes in regulations. The way the GST is implemented is greatly influenced by case law, where judicial involvement has given much-needed direction. Let's examine in detail the rulings or case developments of the top ten landmark GST judgements since the law's creation, as well as their implications.
Table of Contents
GST on Online Gaming: Gameskraft GST Case Law
Forum:Â Supreme Court of India (Hearing on 15th July 2025)
Parties: Directorate General of GST Intelligence vs. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
About the Case: The Gameskraft GST case law, a well-known case with ongoing procedures, centres on the controversy around the categorisation and taxation of online gaming services. When the tax authorities requested Rs. 21,000 crore in GST from Gameskraft, the problem started. The Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of Gameskraft and overturned the tax authority's decision for Rs. 21,000 in GST. The Apex Court has delayed the HC's decision in response to an appeal filed by the tax authorities.
Game of Skill or Luck: Online gaming attracts an 18% GST rate as a game of skill, the corporation argues. According to the tax office, a game of chance is subject to a 28% GST charge under CGST Rule 31A. Additionally, if it is deemed to be betting, GST is applied to the entire pool value. However, if it is considered a platform service, GST is applied to the commission received.
Notices to Online Gaming Companies: The whole online gaming sector in India will be subject to retroactive GST taxation based on the SC's ruling. Many businesses, including Delta Corp. and Paytm's First Games, are still receiving GST show-cause warnings for tax fraud totalling crores of rupees. For all of these instances, the SC has halted show cause notifications until the last hearing.
Correction of Filed GSTR-1 & GSTR-3B: Aberdare Technologies GST Case Law
Forum:Â Supreme Court of India (Judgement on 24th March 2025)
Parties:Â Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vs M/s Aberdare Technologies Private Limited and Ors.
SC Ruling: The CBIC's request for special leave was dismissed by the SC. In order to prevent the denial of input tax credit applications, it was decided that the respondent company may rectify any legitimate errors.
Problem Highlighted: Error rectifications are limited under CGST Sections 37(3) and 39(9). For many businesses, it has resulted in legal issues and regulatory costs. GST deadlines need to be reasonable because a supplier will always discover any delays when the buyer's ITC claim or tax advantage is rejected.
Right to Error Rectification: The right to correct clerical or mathematical errors comes from the taxpayer’s right to conduct business. Unless there is a valid basis and rationale to refuse the benefit of correction, it cannot be denied.
ITC Denial on Technical Grounds: B Braun Medical India (P.) Ltd Case Law
Forum:Â Delhi High Court (Judgement on 12th March 2025)
Parties:Â M/s B Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
HC Ruling: The High Court overturned the contested order that denied Braun Medical Input Tax Credit (ITC), enabling the company to receive ITC of Rs. 5.65 crore during the contested period. After relief was given on the ITC issue, no challenge was made to the constitutionality of CGST Section 16(2)(aa).
Invoice Error and Delivery: The GSTIN and location of B Braun's Mumbai branch, not the Delhi branch, were incorrectly listed on the vendor's invoices. Nevertheless, the Delhi unit received the goods and put them to use. Even though the transaction was legitimate, the tax officer rejected the ITC claim primarily because the GSTIN was incorrect. As a result, this GST case law emphasised the HC's insistence that tax authorities pay attention to the substance and legitimacy of transactions rather than just the details.
Eligibility of ITC on Rental Commercial Property: Safari Retreats GST Case Law
Forum:Â Supreme Court of India (Judgement on 3rd October 2024)
Parties:Â Safari Retreats Private Limited vs. Chief Commissioner of CGST
SC Ruling: ITC claims can be made for materials used to build commercial buildings intended for rental or leasing. As a result, the SC maintained the Odisha HC's decision.
ITC Eligibility: In accordance with CGST Section 19(5)(d), GST paid for goods and services used in the construction of immovable property (apart from plant and machinery) intended for personal use, including when utilised in the course or furtherance of business, is not regarded as ineligible.
The Takeaway: GST on products or services used to build commercial real estate may be interpreted as "plant and machinery." The Supreme Court further noted that the definition of "plant and machinery" in CGST Section 17(5), which excludes land, buildings, and other civil structures, cannot be limited to a narrow definition by the phrase "plant." The Apex Court asserted that in order to interpret the term "plant," the functioning test must be applied. However, SC made it clear that factual analysis must be used to determine the exact scope of commercial property under the term "plant and machinery" on an individual basis. It must take into account the registered person's business as well as the function of buildings in business operations.
ITC Time Limit: Mrityunjay Kumar GST Case Law
Forum:Â Supreme Court of India (Judgement on 3rd January 2024)
Parties:Â Mrityunjay Kumar vs Union of India & Ors.
SC Ruling: In the constitutional validity appeal against CGST Section 16(4), the Supreme Court has issued notice, requiring a strict statutory time limit for ITC claims. The court's observations and directives indicate strict adherence to the statutory time restriction for filing ITC claims, even though a detailed judgement is still pending. The Court is considering the arguments against the time bar, but it has not yet rendered a decision on its constitutionality.
GST Legislation Applicability: The Supreme Court reaffirms that the deadline set forth in CGST Section 16(4) for submitting an ITC claim is legally enforceable and needs to be adhered to rigorously. Taxpayers will have to wait for the final ruling on the constitutionality of the time limit.
Carrying Physical Invoice During Goods Transit: J. K. Jain Buildtech GST Case Law
Forum: Calcutta High Court (Judgement on 3rd April 2023)
Parties-Â J. K. Jain Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal Headquarters, Siliguri & Others
Court Ruling: The Court noted that a physical tax invoice is required and rejected the petitioner's claim that an electronic or digital invoice would be adequate.
GST Rule: The Court decided that the person in charge of the conveyance carrying the goods must keep the invoice in physical form with the consignment in accordance with CGST Rule 138A(1)(a). The business received a fine for presenting the e-way bill without the physical invoice.
Physical Invoice Mandate: The Supreme Court ruled that tax regulations must be taken literally. The invoice, if required, must be in written form and physically produced since the rule itself expressly requires the provision of such documents. During the transportation of goods, a hard copy of the invoice is necessary unless an electronic invoice with a QR code is presented, demonstrating strict adherence to Rule 138A(1)(a).
ITC Claims in the Intervening Period of Revoking the GST Registration Cancellation: Allyssum Infra GST Case Law
Forum:Â Gujarat High Court
Parties -Â Allyssum Infra vs Union of India
Court Ruling: In accordance with Notification No. 3/2023 dated March 31, 2023, which permits taxpayers to request the restoration of registrations that have been revoked owing to non-filing of returns, the court permitted the corporation to request the revocation of their cancelled GST registration.
ITC Eligibility: Most significantly, the court decided that the petitioner could claim the ITC after the revocation was completed, beyond the deadline set by CGST Section 16(4), from the date of the retroactive cancellation (10 September 2021) to the revocation date.
Note to GST Authorities: The ruling directed the GST authorities to consider the ITC claim for the "blackout period" and grant the revocation application. Under Notification No. 3/2023, taxpayers whose previous registrations were revoked up until December 31, 2022, may request revocation. In violation of the statutory time constraints under Section 16(4), the judgement authorises time-barred ITC claims for the period of revocation. Although its justifications for disregarding the time limit are not disclosed, this decision sets a precedent for retroactive ITC applications following revocation.
Time-barred GSTR-3B Revision for ITC Claim: Bharti Airtel Ltd. GST Case Law
Forum:Â Supreme Court of India (Judgement on 28th October 2021)
Parties: Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India
Supreme Court Ruling: The question is whether the taxpayer can amend the GSTR-3B they filed in order to claim the Input Tax Credit (ITC) for inputs made after the legally required period. The Delhi High Court's order was overturned by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court rejected Bharti Airtel's request for a refund of Rs. 923 crore, which was made by correcting GSTR-3B for the time period in which an error occurred after the legally permitted time limit.
GST Law: The SC also stated that, in accordance with the process outlined in CGST Section 39(9) read with CGST Rule 61, GSTR-3B rectifications from July to September 2017 are allowed.
Importance of GSTR-2A: The taxpayer can discharge the liability between July and September 2017 without relying on the automatically generated data made accessible through GSTR-2A on the GST portal. The taxpayer is required to balance the electronic cash and credit ledgers, determine their eligibility, and self-evaluate the available ITC even under the CGST Act. They must not rely on the GST portal as their primary source of information.
GST Circular: Afterwards, on December 29, 2017, CGST Circular 26/26/2017-CT was released to make it clear that the aforementioned return might be corrected using a different approach by making adjustments to the return for the next period. As a result, once GSTR-3B is filed, it cannot be changed or corrected because doing so might affect other stakeholders' responsibilities and liabilities.
ITC Refund Restriction under Inverted Duty Structure: VKC Footsteps GST Case Law
Forum: Supreme Court of India (Judgement on 13th September 2021)
Parties:Â Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.
SC Ruling: The SC overturned the rulings of the high courts. The SC has maintained that CGST Section 54(3) is legitimate in that it permits the return of accrued ITC for an inverted tax structure just for goods that have been acquired and not for services that have been rendered.
Constitutional Validity: Because CGST Rule 89(5) excludes input services from its scope, it is constitutionally lawful.
Impact: Due to the inverted tax structure, this result has resulted in significant input service costs for industries like e-commerce, construction, textiles, fertilisers, and others.
Provisional Attachment: Radha Krishan Industries GST Case Law
Forum:Â Supreme Court of India (Judgement on 20th April 2021)
Parties:Â Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh
SC Ruling: The Supreme Court overturned the company's temporary attachment orders.
Background: On October 28, 2020, the tax officer issued a provisional attachment order for Rs. 5.03 crores. In the fiscal years 2017–18 and 2018–19, the tax officer claimed to have been involved in ITC fraud. Payments to the company's receivables without prior authorisation from the tax department were prohibited by the attachment. Guidelines for the temporary attachment of property under CGST Section 83 were established by the Supreme Court. It highlighted the need for tax authorities to use caution and proper process when taking severe steps.
Conclusion
These significant GST case laws have made a far-reaching impact on the GST regulations as a whole. Taxpayers must be aware of the proceedings and implications of these cases to stay on the right side of the law and prevent any unnecessary penalties, hassles, and legal issues. At the same time, these cases set the foundation for the future.
FAQs
Q1. Why are GST case laws important?
GST case laws provide legal interpretation of complex GST provisions, offering clarity and guidance to taxpayers and tax authorities.
Q2. Can I claim ITC if my GST registration was cancelled and later reinstated?
As per the Allyssum Infra case, courts have allowed ITC claims for the intervening period, even if it goes beyond the statutory deadline.
Q3. What happens if I submit GSTR-3B with incorrect figures?
Based on the Bharti Airtel case, revisions are not allowed after the time limit. Plan ahead to avoid such issues.
Q4. Is ITC allowed on commercial properties leased out for rent?
Yes, as per the Safari Retreats case, ITC can be claimed if the property is used for leasing in the course of business.
Q5. Do I need to carry a physical invoice during goods transport?
Yes, as ruled in J.K. Jain Buildtech case, a physical invoice is mandatory unless an electronic one with a QR code is provided.
