The petitioner was engaged in supplying Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC) for infrastructure works where the contractee provided certain key materials such as cement and other inputs free of cost for use in the manufacturing process.

During assessment proceedings, the GST department took the view that the value of materials supplied free by the contractee should be added to the taxable value of the RMC supplied by the petitioner.

Based on this view, the department issued a demand order enhancing the value of supply, treating the free materials as part of consideration linked to the supply of concrete.

The petitioner challenged the demand before the High Court, contending that materials supplied free by the recipient cannot automatically form part of the 
transaction value, particularly when no payment or contractual consideration was attributable to them.

Pursuant to an NCLT-approved amalgamation (14.11.2019), the transferor entity merged into the applicant, with all assets, liabilities, and accumulated ITC—including transitional CGST credit via TRAN-1—intended to vest in the applicant.

The applicant attempted transfer of ITC through Form GST ITC-02; however, the GST portal rejected the filing citing a “same State/UT” restriction between transferor and transferee registrations.

The applicant challenged the denial before the High Court, contending that neither Section 18(3) of the CGST Act nor Rule 41 of the CGST Rules prescribes any
such geographical limitation. 

Reliance was placed on Umicore Autocat India Pvt. Ltd., while the revenue argued GST is State-specific, cited administrative circulars, and highlighted pendency of challenge before the Supreme Court.

Proceedings were initiated against the taxpayer under the GST framework, resulting in adjudication of alleged tax liability along with applicable interest and penalty, which subsequently attained finality due to non-contestation or exhaustion of appellate remedies.

Upon crystallisation of the demand, the tax authorities proceeded to invoke statutory recovery provisions as prescribed under Section 79 of the CGST/APGST Act for collection of outstanding dues.

In exercise of such powers, the department directly issued instructions to the taxpayer’s banker to debit the amount lying in the account, without issuing any separate or prior recovery notice to the taxpayer.

Aggrieved by the immediate debit action, the taxpayer approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, primarily challenging the recovery on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of prior intimation.

The petitioner was engaged in the supply of solar power generating systems and associated equipment, including solar inverters used in renewable energy installations.

During assessment proceedings, the department took the view that solar inverters constituted independent electrical equipment, taxable at 18% GST, rather than being treated as a component of the solar power generating system.

The assessee contended that solar inverters are functionally inseparable from the solar power generating system, as they convert DC power generated by solar panels into usable AC electricity.

Relying on concessional GST rate provisions applicable to renewable energy devices and parts, the petitioner argued that such supplies should be taxed at 5% GST when supplied as part of the solar power generating system.

The petitioner (AWL Agri Business Ltd., formerly Adani Wilmar) imports edible oil, refines/ packs it, and supplies it domestically; due to an inverted duty structure, it accumulated ITC and filed refund applications for periods including Nov 2018, Mar 2019 and Apr 2019 under Section 54.

The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims on the premise that Rule 89(5) formula (as it then stood) precluded/limited such refunds; the appellate authority also dismissed the appeals by orders dated 25.02.2022, leading to writ petitions before the High Court.

During appeal, the petitioner had specifically highlighted that Rule 89(5) was under reconsideration and sought that matters be kept pending until the GST Council took a view; the Court noted that the GST Council, after the Supreme Court’s decision in VKC Footsteps, considered anomalies and accepted recommendations leading to a modified formula.

The department opposed applying the amended formula to earlier periods, arguing the change is not retrospective and relying on Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 stating the amendment is prospective w.e.f. 05.07.2022.

The dispute arose from penalty proceedings initiated against the CEO, CFO and Joint Managing Director of Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., where the Department sought to impose substantial personal penalties on the allegation that they were responsible for, and had benefited from, transactions leading to wrongful availment of ITC by the company since the inception of GST.

The case was significant because it attempted to fasten personal liability on senior management for corporate tax positions, relying on a provision that was introduced later in the GST regime but invoked for earlier periods as well. The officers approached the Bombay High Court challenging both the jurisdiction and the retrospective application of the penal action.

The petitioners argued that they were not acting as taxable persons in their individual capacity, nor had they derived any personal benefit from the alleged transactions. They further contended that a penal provision inserted subsequently could not be stretched backward to cover conduct from 2017 onwards.

The matter therefore raised an important question in GST enforcement — whether directors and key managerial personnel can be personally penalised for company-level disputes without clear statutory backing and without strict satisfaction of legal preconditions.

The petitioner, a Non-Resident Indian engaged in acquiring leasehold rights over GIDC plots and subsequently transferring sub-plots, was issued a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act alleging wrongful availment and utilisation of ITC amounting to ₹98,11,678/- by invoking the restriction under Section 17(5)(d) (blocked credit relating to construction of immovable property).

The ITC in question pertained to GST charged by GIDC on sub-division fees, transfer charges, administrative charges, and other statutory levies paid by the petitioner while effecting transfer of leasehold rights. The department alleged that such credit was in the nature of blocked credit.

It was undisputed that the petitioner’s sole business activity was transfer of leasehold rights and that full output GST on sale of sub-plots had been discharged in cash; an inadvertent utilisation of a portion of ITC was subsequently reversed through Form DRC-03.

The department proceeded under Section 74 (fraud/suppression) and blocked the credit ledger, alleging contravention of Section 17(5)(d), leading to the writ petition challenging both jurisdiction and interpretation of the blocked credit provision.

The petitioner, Aerocom Cushions Private Limited, challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act proposing recovery of GST on the alleged supply arising from assignment of long-term leasehold rights in an industrial plot allotted by MIDC, Nagpur.

The department alleged that the petitioner had concealed a transaction involving assignment of leasehold rights for consideration of ₹1.50 crore and treated the same as a taxable supply of services under Section 7 read with Schedule II, classifying it as “other miscellaneous services.”

It was undisputed that the petitioner held a 95-year lease, had constructed a factory building on the land, and transferred its leasehold rights to a third party with prior approval of MIDC, along with payment of applicable transfer charges. 

The petitioner contended that the transaction amounted to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property, was not in the course or furtherance of business, and therefore fell outside the scope of “supply” under GST.

The petitioners, retired bank employees covered under group health insurance policies negotiated through the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) and issued by general insurers, challenged the levy of GST @18% on health insurance premiums paid by them.

The challenge was based on Notification No. 16/2025–Central Tax (Rate) dated 17 September 2025, which introduced an exemption on health insurance premiums, and the petitioners contended that the benefit should extend to group insurance arrangements as well.

The petitioners argued that the group existed only as a mechanism to access insurance and that, in substance, the policies were akin to individual or family insurance products, particularly given the social welfare nature of post-retirement medical coverage.

The key issue before the Court was whether the GST exemption on health insurance premiums was intended to apply only to individual and family policies, or whether it could also be claimed in respect of group health insurance policies negotiated collectively.

The petitioner, M/s Sahil Enterprises, a registered dealer engaged in the trade of rubber products, purchased goods from a registered supplier during the period July 2017 to January 2019 and paid GST aggregating to approximately ₹1.11 crore on such purchases. 

While the supplier duly reported the outward supplies in GSTR-1, it failed to discharge its tax liability by filing nil returns in GSTR-3B, resulting in non-payment of tax collected from the petitioner.

Following investigation against the supplier, the GST authorities blocked the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger and issued a show cause notice under Section 73, proposing denial and recovery of ITC with interest and penalty solely on account of the supplier’s default.

The petitioner challenged the action contending that it had no statutory mechanism to verify whether the supplier had actually remitted tax, and that denial of ITC in a bona fide transaction was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of constitutional protections.