GST INDIA Biz
GST India .biz — Case Law
Latest GST Case Law and Judgements
S.No Name Date of Order Subject Actions
1TATA UNISTORE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, NAVI MUMBAI COMMISSIONERATE31-07-2026Whether GST officers can deny, transitional credit (TRAN-1) of CENVAT/VAT closing balances that were never disputed under the pre-GST law, including Krishi Kalyan Cess. View Download

BackgroundThe appellant, which operates the TataCliQ e-commerce platform, transitioned credit of about Rs. 32.81 crore through TRAN-1: CENVAT credit of Rs. 31,83,93,390 under Sections 140(1)/(5), KKC of Rs. 74,67,109 (later reversed under protest) and VAT credit of Rs. 22,14,479 under Section 140(6). By SCN dated 18.01.2022 under Section 74, the department alleged that eligibility had not been proved through invoices and registers; the demand with interest and 100% penalty was confirmed by both lower authorities.Final VerdictThe Tribunal noted the admitted position that no proceedings were ever initiated under the erstwhile law questioning the credit when it was availed. Reading Sections 142(6)(a) and 174(2)(e) and following Usha Martin and SAIL (Jhar HC) and Kunjal Synergies (Cal HC), it held that the admissibility of credit availed under the erstwhile law can be questioned only under that law; officers under the CGST Act have no jurisdiction to reassess it through Section 74. Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 140(1) bars transition only of credit not admissible as ITC under the GST law and does not permit reassessment of pre-GST credits; moreover, a closing balance cannot be correlated to specific invoices. On KKC, following Godrej & Boyce (Bom HC) and Circular 87/06/2019-GST, Explanation 3 cannot operate without notification of Explanations 1 and 2, and the pending SLP, with no stay, did not affect this. The VAT credit was denied without any finding, and Section 74 was unjustified since the basis was the appellant’s own TRAN-1 disclosures. The transitional credit was held eligible in full, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.d 

TATA UNISTORE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, NAVI MUMBAI COMMISSIONERATE 31-07-2026
Whether GST officers can deny, transitional credit (TRAN-1) of CENVAT/VAT closing balances that were never disputed under the pre-GST law, including Krishi Kalyan Cess.

BackgroundThe appellant, which operates the TataCliQ e-commerce platform, transitioned credit of about Rs. 32.81 crore through TRAN-1: CENVAT credit of Rs. 31,83,93,390 under Sections 140(1)/(5), KKC of Rs. 74,67,109 (later reversed under protest) and VAT credit of Rs. 22,14,479 under Section 140(6). By SCN dated 18.01.2022 under Section 74, the department alleged that eligibility had not been proved through invoices and registers; the demand with interest and 100% penalty was confirmed by both lower authorities.Final VerdictThe Tribunal noted the admitted position that no proceedings were ever initiated under the erstwhile law questioning the credit when it was availed. Reading Sections 142(6)(a) and 174(2)(e) and following Usha Martin and SAIL (Jhar HC) and Kunjal Synergies (Cal HC), it held that the admissibility of credit availed under the erstwhile law can be questioned only under that law; officers under the CGST Act have no jurisdiction to reassess it through Section 74. Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 140(1) bars transition only of credit not admissible as ITC under the GST law and does not permit reassessment of pre-GST credits; moreover, a closing balance cannot be correlated to specific invoices. On KKC, following Godrej & Boyce (Bom HC) and Circular 87/06/2019-GST, Explanation 3 cannot operate without notification of Explanations 1 and 2, and the pending SLP, with no stay, did not affect this. The VAT credit was denied without any finding, and Section 74 was unjustified since the basis was the appellant’s own TRAN-1 disclosures. The transitional credit was held eligible in full, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.d 

View Download
2COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE v. GODREJ TYSON FOODS LIMITED22-07-2026Whether printing the manufacturer’s corporate name under FSSAI/Legal Metrology law amounts to a “brand name”, and whether institutional bulk supplies of frozen chicken are “pre-packaged and labelled”, for exemption under Sl. No. 9 of Notificatio View Download

BackgroundThe assessee supplied frozen chicken cuts to Sapphire Foods (a Yum! franchisee). From 05.01.2021 it removed the brand logos, retaining only the corporate name and address required by FSSAI and Legal Metrology law, and claimed Nil rate; after 18.07.2022 it claimed that institutional supplies are not “pre-packaged and labelled”. A Section 74 demand of Rs. 2,26,77,883 with interest and equal penalty was set aside by the Appellate Authority, and Revenue appealed for FY 2020-21 to 2022-23.3. Final VerdictThe Tribunal held that printing the manufacturer’s name and address to comply with a statutory mandate for traceability and safety does not amount to use of a brand name, applying RDB Textiles and Tarai Foods (SC) and the Madras High Court in Narasus Sarathy Enterprises, and distinguishing Grasim Industries (voluntary use of a name to show trade connection). The exemption conditions apply to the goods and their packaging, so a brand name on invoices does not make the goods branded (Australian Foods). For the period after 18.07.2022, under Rule 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, packages intended for institutional consumers are not pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale. Advance rulings relied on by the adjudicating authority were held not binding on the Tribunal and contrary to Supreme Court law, and Sarvasidhi Agrotech (Tripura HC) was distinguished. The goods were held exempt, the demand, interest and penalty fell, and Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.

COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE v. GODREJ TYSON FOODS LIMITED 22-07-2026
Whether printing the manufacturer’s corporate name under FSSAI/Legal Metrology law amounts to a “brand name”, and whether institutional bulk supplies of frozen chicken are “pre-packaged and labelled”, for exemption under Sl. No. 9 of Notificatio

BackgroundThe assessee supplied frozen chicken cuts to Sapphire Foods (a Yum! franchisee). From 05.01.2021 it removed the brand logos, retaining only the corporate name and address required by FSSAI and Legal Metrology law, and claimed Nil rate; after 18.07.2022 it claimed that institutional supplies are not “pre-packaged and labelled”. A Section 74 demand of Rs. 2,26,77,883 with interest and equal penalty was set aside by the Appellate Authority, and Revenue appealed for FY 2020-21 to 2022-23.3. Final VerdictThe Tribunal held that printing the manufacturer’s name and address to comply with a statutory mandate for traceability and safety does not amount to use of a brand name, applying RDB Textiles and Tarai Foods (SC) and the Madras High Court in Narasus Sarathy Enterprises, and distinguishing Grasim Industries (voluntary use of a name to show trade connection). The exemption conditions apply to the goods and their packaging, so a brand name on invoices does not make the goods branded (Australian Foods). For the period after 18.07.2022, under Rule 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, packages intended for institutional consumers are not pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale. Advance rulings relied on by the adjudicating authority were held not binding on the Tribunal and contrary to Supreme Court law, and Sarvasidhi Agrotech (Tripura HC) was distinguished. The goods were held exempt, the demand, interest and penalty fell, and Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.

View Download
Total: 2 case laws