Read the facts, reasoning and relief together. A dedicated GST collection with original court decisions and individual AKHB review notes.
195 source-reviewed notes published. Selected Supreme Court and High Court GST judgments and procedural case histories, and GSTAT Principal Bench Anti-Profiteering Division orders, individually checked against identified primary PDFs. Counts refer to AKHB notes, not unique final-merits judgments or the separate discovery inventory. This is an expanding research collection, not a complete or live court feed. Coverage does not establish that all relevant judgments, later orders or statutory changes have been identified. This includes 4 linked procedural case-history notes; each remains one note and is not counted as a final-merits judgment. Published decision dates: 2018-10-03 to 2026-10-05. Source-review edition: 2026-10-16.
Browse by court or authority
Coverage begins with the Supreme Court, followed by High Courts, GSTAT and Advance Rulings. Pending coverage is not a finding that no decisions exist.
SLP (C) No. 30756 of 2025; Diary No. 59848 of 2025
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: section 6(2)(b), raised in the petitioners' submission recorded on 10 November 2025 · State/Central parallel-proceeding objection and the asserted relationship between statutory limits and administrative circulars; merits not decided in the reviewed Supreme Court orders
CGST Act 2017 Sections 54(11), 16(2)(b), 70 and 112(3); CGST Rules 2017 Rule 111(1), cited in the departmental appeal background; Constitution of India Article 226. Other statutory references in submissions and administrative quotations are not separate holdings.
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division ·
No neutral or reporter citation printed in the identified official order.
Atri Green Valley: reinvestigation and limitation objections rejected; Rs. 31,20,542 plus interest for 66 buyers
Recipient liability survives reasoned rejection of preliminary objections; Penalty exclusion does not erase Rs. 31,20,542 and interest for 66 buyers; Interest-start, submission-date and cited-case-date conflicts retained; Pending remand and directory-time reasoning remain fact-specific and qualified; Conflicting interest starts remain unresolved; payment and reporting periods distinct; Principal Bench anti-profiteering scope; ordinary appeals and State Benches unverified; Historical, quoted and current-law contexts remain expressly qualified; Bounded later-treatment checks; complete docket and actual compliance unverified
Reasoned final decision The 66 eligible homebuyers on the Rs. 31,20,542 award and 18% interest; the respondent on exclusion of retrospective penalty. Interest-start inconsistency, project scope and unverified compliance qualify the result.
CGST Act 2017: Sections 109(3), 171(1) and 171(3A); CGST Rules 2017: Rules 128, 129(6), 133(4) and 133(3)(b), with the reporting-time quotation treated as source reasoning; Central Tax Notification 23/2022, historical CCI empowerment recital; Central Tax (Rate) Notification 11/2017, historical construction-rate recital; Finance (No. 2) Act 2019, source-recorded insertion of Section 171(3A); CGST Act 2017: Sections 109 and 171(2), institutional/current-law context; Central Tax Notifications 18/2024 and 19/2024, empowerment and new-request-cutoff context. Central Tax Notification 31/2019: amending rule 15, targeted correction of the Rule 129(6) quotation rather than a separate operative holding.
Interim patent-dispute deposits, royalty consideration and the service-tax to GST transition
Legacy service-tax appeal dismissed; no blanket liability extinction; Proposed questions and savings provision are not independent holdings
Reasoned final decision Micromax, as respondent, on Revenue’s challenge to the dropping of these service-tax proceedings. The later settlement royalty remained subject to the recorded IGST treatment.
Central Excise Act 1944 Section 35G; Finance Act 1994 Sections 66A, 68(2), 75 and 78 appear in Revenue’s proposed questions; Service Tax Rules 1994 Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) is quoted there; CGST Act 2017 Section 174(2)(e) is the savings provision invoked in proposed question 4, whose printed Act name is “COST Act”.
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division ·
No neutral or reporter citation printed for this judgment in the identified official order.
Cinema-ticket tax reduction: maximum-price regulation did not excuse retention of the benefit
Liability and equal public-fund deposits remain despite no penalty; Expressly limited interest period does not establish merits exoneration; Erroneous printed Section 170(1), chronology and rounded tables retained; Price-control and quoted-authority reasoning remains separately attributed; Interest ends on the printed date; no deposit deadline or completed payment inferred; Principal Bench anti-profiteering scope; ordinary appeals and State Benches unverified; Historical, quoted and current-law contexts remain expressly qualified; Bounded later-treatment checks; complete docket and actual compliance unverified
Reasoned final decision DGAP and the consumer-protection claim on substantive liability, implemented through equal deposits to the Central and Telangana State Consumer Welfare Funds because recipients were unidentifiable. Alankar Cinema obtained no merits exoneration; the no-penalty ruling and the expressly limited interest period qualify the monetary consequences.
CGST Act 2017: Sections 171(1), 171(2), 171(3) and 171(3A), with the statutory quotation distinguished from the actual no-penalty ruling; CGST Rules 2017: Rules 128, 129(1), 129(6), 133(4) and 133(3)(c); Central Tax (Rate) Notification 27/2018 dated 31 December 2018, historical cinema-rate reduction as recorded; Central Tax Notification 23/2022 dated 23 November 2022, historical CCI empowerment as recorded; CGST Act 2017: Section 109(3), Principal Bench constitution as recorded; Central Tax Notification 18/2024 dated 30 September 2024, Principal Bench empowerment as recorded; Central Tax Notification 01/2020, penalty-commencement reference in paragraph 57, independently checked; Code of Civil Procedure 1908: Order VIII Rules 3 and 5, in the Tribunal’s reproduced Supreme Court authorities; Government Order Ms. No. 100, Home (General A) Department, dated 26 April 2013, price-regulation defence as recorded; CGST Act 2017: Section 170(1), erroneous printed paragraph 54 reference, not endorsed as a statutory presumption; CGST Act 2017: Sections 109 and 171(2), institutional/current-law context; Central Tax Notification 19/2024, new-request-cutoff context; Central Tax Notification 31/2019: amending rule 17(c), contextual fund-interest check, without rewriting the operative interest period.
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division ·
No neutral or reporter citation printed for this judgment in the identified official order.
Cinema-ticket rate reduction: evidence of pass-through, commercial pricing defences and a confined liability period
Liability and equal Fund deposits retain the expressly confined interest period; No penalty and limited investigation do not establish merits exoneration; Restarted paragraph numbers, amount and report-date conflicts remain qualified; Price-setting freedom, quoted civil authority and erroneous presumption remain distinct; No numerical deposit deadline or completed payment is inferred; Principal Bench anti-profiteering scope; ordinary appeals and State Benches unverified; Historical, quoted and current-law contexts remain expressly qualified; Bounded later-treatment checks; complete docket and actual compliance unverified
Reasoned final decision DGAP and the consumer-protection claim on the adjudicated liability, implemented by equal Central and Telangana Consumer Welfare Fund deposits. Devi received no merits exoneration for 1 January–10 March 2019; the confined investigation period, zero balcony amount and express no-penalty direction qualify the result.
CGST Act 2017: Section 171(1), tax-rate benefit pass-through obligation; CGST Act 2017: Sections 171(2), 171(3) and 171(3A), as reproduced in the judgment, with the no-penalty direction separately identified; CGST Act 2017: Section 109(3), Principal Bench constitution as recorded; CGST Rules 2017: Rule 128, original application; CGST Rules 2017: Rules 129 and 129(1), investigation notice and referral; Central Tax (Rate) Notification 27/2018 dated 31 December 2018, historical cinema-rate amendment; Central Tax Notification 23/2022 dated 23 November 2022, historical CCI empowerment as recorded; Central Tax Notification 18/2024 dated 30 September 2024, Principal Bench empowerment; Code of Civil Procedure 1908: Order VIII Rules 3 and 5, in the Thangam passage applied by GSTAT; CGST Act 2017: Section 172, in the reproduced Sudarshan Theatre passage only; CGST Act 2017: Section 170(1), erroneous printed paragraph 31 reference, not an endorsed statutory presumption; CGST Act 2017: Section 170, targeted primary rounding-off check; Central Tax Notification 19/2024 dated 30 September 2024, separate new-request-cutoff context.
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division ·
No neutral or reporter citation printed in the identified official order.
Shree Two: Rs. 16,54,056 profiteering theory rejected; separate excess-GST refund direction to tax authority
Mixed result rejects profiteering theory but retains separate tax-refund direction; Rejected Rs. 16,54,056 is not the applicant’s quantified refund award; Unit, flat-count, paragraph wording and arithmetic conflicts retained; Post-GST project reasoning does not establish blanket immunity or validate ITC; Refund is unquantified; no operative interest, penalty or completed implementation; Principal Bench anti-profiteering scope; ordinary appeals and State Benches unverified; Historical, quoted and current-law contexts remain expressly qualified; Bounded later-treatment checks; complete docket and actual compliance unverified
Mixed outcome Mixed: Shreeji Infra on rejection of DGAP’s Rs. 16,54,056 anti-profiteering computation; the applicant on the separate tax-authority refund direction according to law. No quantified refund, interest award, implementation finding or general approval of the tax/ITC treatment is supplied.
CGST Act 2017: Sections 109(3), 171 and 171(1), with Section 172 appearing only inside the reproduced Sudarshan Theatre passage, not a separately decided issue; CGST Rules 2017: Rules 128 and 129(1), with Rule 133(3)(c) appearing in the applicant’s interest submission rather than an operative award; Central Tax Notification 18/2024, Principal Bench empowerment cited in the original; CGST Act 2017: Sections 109 and 171(2), institutional/current-law context; Central Tax Notification 19/2024, new-request-cutoff context.
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division ·
Revised recipient liability includes interest and a conditional flat adjustment; Credit reversal and penalty exclusion qualify the recipient-favouring result; Two-rupee table discrepancy and separate typed/signature dates retained; Project-specific reversal and twelve flat entries do not establish twelve persons; Flat 202 affidavit safeguard is conditional; later payment and compliance unverified; Principal Bench anti-profiteering scope; ordinary appeals and State Benches unverified; Historical, quoted and current-law contexts remain expressly qualified; Bounded later-treatment checks; complete docket and actual compliance unverified
Reasoned final decision Eligible Maruti Tower recipients on the revised Rs. 2,62,832 amount and 18% interest. The respondent obtained recognition of the unutilised-credit reversal and exclusion of pre-2020 penalty; table/date discrepancies and the conditional adjustment safeguard remain qualifications.
CGST Act 2017: Section 171, including Sections 171(1), 171(2), 171(3) and 171(3A), with the statutory quotation distinguished from the actual pre-2020 penalty ruling; CGST Rules 2017: Rules 128, 129(6) and 133(3)(b); Central Tax (Rate) Notification 11/2017, historical construction-rate recital; CGST Act 2017: Sections 109 and 171(2), institutional/current-law context; Central Tax Notifications 18/2024 and 19/2024, empowerment and new-request-cutoff context.
SLP (C) No. 33412 of 2026; Diary No. 51495 of 2026 (the original prints the diary number; the registered SLP number is from the official Court search)
Availability of an alternative remedy and time to invoke it, as addressed in paragraph 2 · The order does not identify the statutory appellate provision or determine the underlying GST liability
SLP (C) No. 30419 of 2026; Diary No. 49695 of 2026
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: section 107, as expressly identified in paragraph 2 · Alternative statutory appellate remedy following refusal to entertain a writ petition; no substantive GST liability or general extension of appeal limitation decided
Read the judgment in its statutory setting
Each note identifies the source paragraphs or PDF pages used. The original judgment and AKHB note are separate downloads. The review point is AKHB analysis, distinct from the Court’s holding. A remand, interim order or procedural outcome is identified without presenting it as a final merits victory.
Decisions may concern an earlier version of the law. Check the relevant tax period, statutory amendments, later orders and jurisdiction before relying on any note. This GST collection is separate from the existing income-tax collection.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
AI-assisted research checked against the identified primary source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on the facts, tax period, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless the note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
