GST Case Laws: Top 10 Famous GST Case Judgments and Analysis

Goods and Services Tax (GST) law is evolving every year. Amid the constant regulatory changes, many taxpayers could be at loggerheads with the tax authorities when interpreting the GST rules. GST case laws are pivotal in shaping their implementation, where judicial intervention has provided much-needed guidance. 

Let’s deep-dive into the judgement copies or the case progress of the top 10 landmark GST case laws since the inception of the GST law, along with the impact.

Top 10 GST Case Laws Since 2017: Judgments and Impact

1. Gameskraft GST Case Law- GST on Online Gaming

Parties involved- Directorate General of GST Intelligence vs. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Forum- Supreme Court of India (Next hearing 15th July 2025)

Key aspects of the case-

Progress of the case: A popular case where the proceedings are underway, the Gameskraft GST case law revolves around the debate of classifying and taxing online gaming services. 

The issue began when the tax authorities demanded Rs.21,000 crore in GST from Gameskraft. The value at stake has made this GST case law popular. The Karnataka High Court quashed the tax authority’s order demanding GST of Rs.21,000, ruling in favour of Gameskraft. Based on an appeal by the tax authority, the Apex Court has stayed the HC’s ruling. 

Game of skill or chance: The contention is whether the online gaming service is a game of skill or chance. As the company contends, it attracts an 18% GST rate as a game of skill. A game of chance under the CGST Rule 31A attracts a 28% GST rate, as the tax authority asserts. Also, GST is levied on the total pool value if it is considered betting. On the other hand, GST is charged on the commission collected if it is regarded as a platform service.

String of notices issued to online gaming companies: The SC’s judgement shall retrospectively set the base of taxation under GST for India's entire online gaming industry. Many companies continue to receive GST show cause notices for evasion of taxes amounting to crores of rupees, such as the Delta Corp, and Paytm’s First Games. The SC has stayed the show cause notices for all such cases until the final hearing.

2. Bharti Airtel Ltd. GST Case Law- Time-barred GSTR-3B Revision for ITC Claim

Parties involved- Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India

Forum- Supreme Court of India (Judgement passed on 28th October 2021)

Key aspects of the case-

The issue is whether the taxpayer can revise the filed GSTR-3B to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on inputs beyond the period as prescribed by law.

SC judgement: The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi HC’s order. The Apex Court disallowed a refund of Rs. 923 crore to Bharti Airtel, which was made by rectifying GSTR-3B for the period when an error occurred after the time limit allowed by law.

What does the GST law say? SC further added that GSTR-3B rectifications from July to September 2017 are permitted as per the procedure given under CGST Section 39(9) read with CGST Rule 61. 

GSTR-2A importance: The taxpayer need not depend on the auto-generated data available via GSTR-2A on the GST portal for discharging the liability between July 2017 and September 2017. Even under the CGST Act, the taxpayer must self-assess the ITC available, check its eligibility, and balance the electronic cash/credit ledgers. They must not depend on the GST portal as the go-to data source.

GST Circular: Later, CGST Circular 26/26/2017-CT dated 29th December 2017 was issued to clarify that rectifying the said return is possible using a different methodology by making changes in the subsequent period’s return.

Accordingly, GSTR-3B cannot be revised/rectified once filed, as it would have a cascading impact on the obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders.

3. Safari Retreats GST Case Law- Eligibility of ITC on Rental Commercial Property

Parties involved- Safari Retreats Private Limited vs. Chief Commissioner of CGST

Forum- Supreme Court of India (Judgement passed on 3rd October 2024

Key aspects of the case-

SC judgement:  The materials used in the construction of commercial properties for renting/leasing are eligible for ITC claims. Accordingly, the SC upheld the ruling of the Odisha HC. 

ITC eligibility: The same is not considered ineligible in line with CGST Section 19(5)(d)- GST paid for goods and services used in constructing immovable property (other than plant and machinery) meant for own purpose, including when used in the course or furtherance of business.

What are commercial complex construction materials referred to as for the ITC purpose?

In other words,  GST on goods or services for the construction of commercial property can be construed as ‘plant and machinery’. The Supreme Court also observed that the term ‘plant’ cannot be given a restricted meaning in the explanation to CGST Section 17(5) defining ‘plant and machinery’, which actually excludes land, buildings or any other civil structures. The Apex Court claimed that one must take recourse to the functionality test to interpret the term ‘plant’.

Does it apply universally?

However, SC clarified that the scope of commercial property within the term plant and machinery must be checked on a case-to-case basis through factual analysis. It must consider the business of the registered person and the role of building in conduct of business.

4. B Braun Medical India (P.) Ltd Case Law- ITC Denial on Technical Grounds

Parties involved- M/s B Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Forum- Delhi High Court (Judgement passed on 12th March 2025)

Key aspects of the case-

HC judgement: The High Court set aside the impugned order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC), allowing Braun Medical to avail ITC worth Rs.5.65 crore during the disputed time. The challenge to the constitutionality of CGST Section 16(2)(aa) was not pressed after relief was granted on the ITC issue.

The invoice error and delivery:

The vendor’s invoices erroneously mentioned the GSTIN and address of B Braun’s Mumbai instead of the Delhi branch. However, the goods were delivered to the Delhi unit and used by it. The tax officer denied the ITC claim mainly due to the wrong GSTIN, even when the transaction was genuine.

Accordingly, this GST case law highlighted the emphasis by HC that tax authorities must focus on the substance and authenticity of transactions, not mere technicalities.

5. VKC Footsteps GST Case Law- ITC Refund Restriction under Inverted Duty Structure

Parties involved- Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.

Forum- Supreme Court of India (Judgement passed on 13th September 2021)

Key aspects of the case-

SC judgement: SC set aside the high court decisions. SC has upheld that CGST Section 54(3) is valid in allowing refund of accumulated ITC for inverted tax structure only on goods purchased and not on services received. 

Constitutional validity: Accordingly, CGST Rule 89(5) is constitutionally valid by not including input services in its ambit.

The impact: This outcome has affected sectors such as the e-commerce, construction, textiles, fertilisers, and others facing inverted tax structure incurring significant input service costs.

6. Aberdare Technologies GST Case Law- Correction of Filed GSTR-1 & GSTR-3B 

Parties involved- Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vs M/s Aberdare Technologies Private Limited and Ors.

Forum- Supreme Court of India ( Judgement passed on 24th March 2025)

Key aspects of the case-

SC judgement: The SC did not find merit in the special leave petition filed by the CBIC. It has ruled that the respondent company be allowed to correct any bona fide/genuine mistakes to avoid denying input tax credit claims. 

The issue at hand: CGST Sections 37(3) and 39(9) limit error rectifications. It has led to litigation and compliance burdens for many businesses. Return timelines must be realistic, as a supplier may invariably realise any lapse when the ITC claim is denied to the purchaser or when the tax benefit is denied. 

Error rectification is the taxpayer’s right: The Apex court also held that the right to rectify errors that are clerical or arithmetical in nature is a right that flows from the right to do business. It must not be denied unless there is a reasonable justification and reason to deny the benefit of correction.

7. Allyssum Infra GST Case Law- ITC Claims in the Intervening Period of Revoking the Cancellation of the GST Registration

Parties involved- Allyssum Infra vs Union of India

Forum- Gujarat High Court

Key aspects of the case-

Court judgement: The court allowed the company to seek revocation of their cancelled GST registration under Notification No. 3/2023 dated 31st March 2023, which provides for taxpayers to apply for restoration of registration cancelled due to non-filing of returns.

ITC eligibility: Most importantly, the court ruled that when the revocation is done, the petitioner shall be allowed to claim the ITC from the date of the retroactive cancellation (10th September 2021) to the revocation date, trumping the time limit under the CGST Section 16(4). 

Note to the tax officers: The ruling instructed the GST authorities to grant the revocation application and entertain the ITC application for the "blackout period".

Taxpayers with prior registrations revoked up to December 31, 2022, may seek revocation under Notification No. 3/2023. The judgment grants time-barred ITC claims for the period of revocation, defying statutory time limits under Section 16(4).

The precedent is established by this verdict for retrospective ITC claims after revocation, although its reasons for overriding the time limit are not explained.

8. J. K. Jain Buildtech GST Case Law- Carrying Physical Invoice During Goods Transit

Parties involved- J. K. Jain Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal Headquarters, Siliguri & Others

Forum- Calcutta High Court (Judgement passed on 3rd April 2023)

Key aspects of the case-

Court judgement: The Court dismissed the petitioner's argument that an electronic or digital invoice would suffice and mentioned that a physical tax invoice is necessary.

What does the GST Rule say?

The Court ruled that, according to CGST Rule 138A(1)(a), whoever is in charge of the conveyance conveying goods has to hold the invoice in physical form along with the consignment. The company was fined for failing to produce the physical invoice while producing the e-way bill. 

Need for physical invoice: SC held that taxing laws had to be literally interpreted. As the rule itself clearly mandates the production of documents such as the invoice, it will necessarily have to be in written form and drawn physically, if called for. A physical copy of the invoice is required during the movement of goods unless an e-invoice with QR code is produced, making clear rigorous compliance with Rule 138A(1)(a). 

9. Mrityunjay Kumar GST Case Law- Time Limit for ITC

Parties concerned- Mrityunjay Kumar vs Union of India & Ors.

Forum- Supreme Court of India (Judgement passed on 3rd January 2024)

Key aspects of the case-

SC Judgement: The Supreme Court has granted notice in the constitutional validity challenge against CGST Section 16(4), mandating a rigid statutory time limit for claiming ITC. Although a detailed judgment is awaited, the court's observations and orders suggest rigid compliance with the statutory time limit for filing ITC claims. The arguments against the time bar are under consideration by the Court, but no final judgment has been given regarding its constitutional validity.

Applicability of GST law: The Supreme Court reiterates that the statutory time limit in the CGST Section 16(4) for filing a claim for ITC is binding and must be applied strictly. Taxpayers must wait until the final judgment on whether the time limit is constitutionally sound. However, the legislation presently calls for timely claims of ITC within the prescribed period.

10. Radha Krishan Industries GST Case Law- Provisional Attachment

Parties involved- Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Forum- Supreme Court of India (Judgement passed on 20th April 2021)

Key aspects of the case-

SC judgement: The apex court set aside the provisional attachment orders on the company. 

Background: The tax officer ordered provisional attachment on 28th October 2020, for Rs. 5.03 crores. The tax officer alleged the involvement in ITC fraud during the FY 2017-18 and 2018-19. The attachment disallowed payments to the company’s receivables without prior permission from the tax department.

The Supreme Court provided guidelines for the provisional attachment of property under CGST Section 83. It emphasised that drastic measures by tax officers must be used sparingly and with due process.