The petitioner, Sanjay Jain, filed a set of Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 07 May 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 46321 of 2024. The petitions arose from criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.At the stage of hearing, the Court directed the respondents to file their counter affidavit within three weeks. The petitioner was allowed to file a rejoinder, if any, within one week thereafter. The matter was ordered to be listed after four weeks for further hearing.The Supreme Court also directed that the interim order earlier granted in favour of the petitioner shall continue to operate until the next date of hearing.
The petitioner, Sanjay Jain, filed a set of Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 07 May 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 46321 of 2024. The petitions arose from criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.At the stage of hearing, the Court directed the respondents to file their counter affidavit within three weeks. The petitioner was allowed to file a rejoinder, if any, within one week thereafter. The matter was ordered to be listed after four weeks for further hearing.The Supreme Court also directed that the interim order earlier granted in favour of the petitioner shall continue to operate until the next date of hearing.
The petitioner challenged provisional attachment of its bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The factual background revealed that the attachment continued beyond one year from the date of the order.The Court held that Section 83(2) clearly mandates that provisional attachment shall cease after expiry of one year. Any continuation beyond the statutory period is illegal. The provisional attachment was quashed.
M/s Tirupati Steel vs Union of India & Ors. 25-08-2025
The petitioner challenged provisional attachment of its bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The factual background revealed that the attachment continued beyond one year from the date of the order.The Court held that Section 83(2) clearly mandates that provisional attachment shall cease after expiry of one year. Any continuation beyond the statutory period is illegal. The provisional attachment was quashed.
The petitioner challenged dismissal of a GST appeal on the ground of limitation and sought adjudication on merits through writ jurisdiction. The factual background showed that the statutory appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of 120 days prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act.The Court held that once the statutory limitation and condonable period expire, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory limitation. The petition was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged dismissal of a GST appeal on the ground of limitation and sought adjudication on merits through writ jurisdiction. The factual background showed that the statutory appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of 120 days prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act.The Court held that once the statutory limitation and condonable period expire, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory limitation. The petition was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order imposing tax and penalty on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The factual matrix revealed that the show cause notice was issued invoking extended limitation, and though the order was signed within time, it was uploaded on the GST portal after expiry of the statutory period.The Court held that for the purposes of limitation, the date on which the order is uploaded and communicated to the assessee is relevant. Mere signing of the order within limitation does not save it if it is not issued or uploaded within the prescribed period. Since the order was uploaded beyond limitation, it was held to be time-barred and set aside.
Rishi Enterprises vs Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi North & Anr. 20-08-2025
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order imposing tax and penalty on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The factual matrix revealed that the show cause notice was issued invoking extended limitation, and though the order was signed within time, it was uploaded on the GST portal after expiry of the statutory period.The Court held that for the purposes of limitation, the date on which the order is uploaded and communicated to the assessee is relevant. Mere signing of the order within limitation does not save it if it is not issued or uploaded within the prescribed period. Since the order was uploaded beyond limitation, it was held to be time-barred and set aside.
The petitioner sought refund of the pre-deposit made for filing appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/JGST Act. The refund application was rejected automatically on the ground of limitation under Section 54. The petitioner contended that once the appeal was allowed, retention of pre-deposit was without authority of law and hit by Article 265 of the Constitution.The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and stood covered by an earlier Division Bench decision holding that Section 54 limitation is not mandatory for refund of pre-deposit. Automatic rejection of refund on limitation was held to be unsustainable. The deficiency memos and rejection of refund were set aside with directions to process the refund along with statutory interest.
GTL Infrastructure Limited vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. 20-08-2025
The petitioner sought refund of the pre-deposit made for filing appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/JGST Act. The refund application was rejected automatically on the ground of limitation under Section 54. The petitioner contended that once the appeal was allowed, retention of pre-deposit was without authority of law and hit by Article 265 of the Constitution.The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and stood covered by an earlier Division Bench decision holding that Section 54 limitation is not mandatory for refund of pre-deposit. Automatic rejection of refund on limitation was held to be unsustainable. The deficiency memos and rejection of refund were set aside with directions to process the refund along with statutory interest.
The appellant, Kesari Nandan Mobile, challenged before the Supreme Court the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 29 January 2025, which had dismissed its writ petition. The dispute arose from the respondent’s action of re-issuing provisional attachment orders dated 13 November 2024 and 18 December 2024 under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”), even after the earlier attachments of October 2023 had lapsed upon completion of one year.The appellant argued that the CGST Act does not permit renewal of provisional attachments after expiry of their statutory one-year life under Section 83(2). It contended that the respondent’s subsequent orders, purporting to “renew” the attachments, were without jurisdiction and violated the statutory limitation. The Gujarat High Court, however, had upheld the respondent’s action, holding that there was no legal bar to issuing fresh attachments for safeguarding revenue.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined Section 83 of the CGST Act and Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, noting the draconian nature of provisional attachment powers. The Court held that sub-section (2) of Section 83 clearly limits the life of such attachment to one year, and there is no statutory provision authorizing renewal or re-issuance. Permitting repeated or renewed attachments would render sub-section (2) nugatory and violate legislative intent.The Court rejected the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning that absence of a specific prohibition allows fresh attachment. It emphasized that statutory authorities can only act within powers expressly conferred by law, and any act not authorized is ultra vires. The Court also took note of the GST Council’s recommendation to amend Rule 159 to align it with Section 83, recognizing the one-year limit on provisional attachment.Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned attachment orders dated 13 November 2024 and 18 December 2024, and directed de-freezing of the appellant’s bank accounts. The Court clarified, however, that the revenue authorities may continue their investigation in accordance with law.
Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (2), Enforcement Division–5 14-08-2025
The appellant, Kesari Nandan Mobile, challenged before the Supreme Court the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 29 January 2025, which had dismissed its writ petition. The dispute arose from the respondent’s action of re-issuing provisional attachment orders dated 13 November 2024 and 18 December 2024 under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”), even after the earlier attachments of October 2023 had lapsed upon completion of one year.The appellant argued that the CGST Act does not permit renewal of provisional attachments after expiry of their statutory one-year life under Section 83(2). It contended that the respondent’s subsequent orders, purporting to “renew” the attachments, were without jurisdiction and violated the statutory limitation. The Gujarat High Court, however, had upheld the respondent’s action, holding that there was no legal bar to issuing fresh attachments for safeguarding revenue.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined Section 83 of the CGST Act and Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, noting the draconian nature of provisional attachment powers. The Court held that sub-section (2) of Section 83 clearly limits the life of such attachment to one year, and there is no statutory provision authorizing renewal or re-issuance. Permitting repeated or renewed attachments would render sub-section (2) nugatory and violate legislative intent.The Court rejected the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning that absence of a specific prohibition allows fresh attachment. It emphasized that statutory authorities can only act within powers expressly conferred by law, and any act not authorized is ultra vires. The Court also took note of the GST Council’s recommendation to amend Rule 159 to align it with Section 83, recognizing the one-year limit on provisional attachment.Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned attachment orders dated 13 November 2024 and 18 December 2024, and directed de-freezing of the appellant’s bank accounts. The Court clarified, however, that the revenue authorities may continue their investigation in accordance with law.
The petitioner, M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd., engaged in providing security services, challenged the summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. Earlier, the State GST authority had issued a show-cause notice for the same tax period (April 2020–March 2021) regarding non-reconciliation of turnover and excess input tax credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, the Central GST authorities conducted a search and issued separate summons for production of documents.The petitioner contended that the Central authority lacked jurisdiction to issue such summons since proceedings on the same subject matter had already been initiated by the State authority, invoking the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that issuance of summons was merely an investigative step, not initiation of proceedings.The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision, ruling that the issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not amount to “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b). The Court clarified that “proceedings” in the said provision refer to adjudicatory actions such as assessment, demand, or penalty proceedings under Sections 73 or 74, and not preliminary steps like searches or investigations.The Court harmonized various High Court decisions and emphasized that Section 6(2)(b) seeks to prevent dual adjudication, not parallel investigations. It concluded that inquiries by Central authorities are valid even where the State authorities have commenced proceedings on a similar issue, provided no adjudicatory overlap occurs. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Another 14-08-2025
The petitioner, M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd., engaged in providing security services, challenged the summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. Earlier, the State GST authority had issued a show-cause notice for the same tax period (April 2020–March 2021) regarding non-reconciliation of turnover and excess input tax credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, the Central GST authorities conducted a search and issued separate summons for production of documents.The petitioner contended that the Central authority lacked jurisdiction to issue such summons since proceedings on the same subject matter had already been initiated by the State authority, invoking the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that issuance of summons was merely an investigative step, not initiation of proceedings.The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision, ruling that the issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not amount to “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b). The Court clarified that “proceedings” in the said provision refer to adjudicatory actions such as assessment, demand, or penalty proceedings under Sections 73 or 74, and not preliminary steps like searches or investigations.The Court harmonized various High Court decisions and emphasized that Section 6(2)(b) seeks to prevent dual adjudication, not parallel investigations. It concluded that inquiries by Central authorities are valid even where the State authorities have commenced proceedings on a similar issue, provided no adjudicatory overlap occurs. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
The petitioners, Commissioner, CGST Appeal-1, Delhi and others, filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the common final judgment and order dated 12 December 2024 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 13211, 14710, and 16477 of 2024. The High Court’s decision had granted relief to the respondents, M/s Bharti Airtel Limited and others, in connection with issues arising under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) framework.At the hearing, the Supreme Court first considered the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. The Court condoned the delay of 105 days in filing the petitions, allowing the interlocutory application.After hearing arguments from both sides, including the learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioners and senior counsel for the respondents, the Court found no ground to interfere with the judgment of the Delhi High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Commissioner, CGST Appeal-1, Delhi & Ors. v. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited & Ors. 08-08-2025
The petitioners, Commissioner, CGST Appeal-1, Delhi and others, filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the common final judgment and order dated 12 December 2024 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 13211, 14710, and 16477 of 2024. The High Court’s decision had granted relief to the respondents, M/s Bharti Airtel Limited and others, in connection with issues arising under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) framework.At the hearing, the Supreme Court first considered the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. The Court condoned the delay of 105 days in filing the petitions, allowing the interlocutory application.After hearing arguments from both sides, including the learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioners and senior counsel for the respondents, the Court found no ground to interfere with the judgment of the Delhi High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
The petitioner challenged execution court orders directing payment of GST on interest awarded under arbitral awards. The factual background showed that during pendency of the petitions, an advance ruling was obtained clarifying taxability of interest and costs awarded in arbitration.The Court held that once the Authority for Advance Ruling concluded that interest and costs awarded under arbitration are not exigible to GST, continuation of execution orders directing GST payment was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside.
Goa Shipyard Limited vs Shoft Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. 06-08-2025
The petitioner challenged execution court orders directing payment of GST on interest awarded under arbitral awards. The factual background showed that during pendency of the petitions, an advance ruling was obtained clarifying taxability of interest and costs awarded in arbitration.The Court held that once the Authority for Advance Ruling concluded that interest and costs awarded under arbitration are not exigible to GST, continuation of execution orders directing GST payment was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside.
The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Garg, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 09 May 2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5737/2025. The dispute arose in relation to the applicability of penal provisions under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”).Two principal contentions were raised before the Court. First, the petitioner argued that Section 122(1) of the CGST Act was inapplicable to him as he was a non-taxable person and therefore not liable under that provision. Second, it was contended that Section 122(1A) of the Act, which came into force on 1 January 2021, could not be applied retrospectively to assessment years 2017–2020.The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. Pending disposal of the matter, the Court ordered a stay on recovery of the amount directed to be deposited, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the demand before the GST Department, either through the electronic ledger or cash ledger.
Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. 04-08-2025
The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Garg, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 09 May 2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5737/2025. The dispute arose in relation to the applicability of penal provisions under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”).Two principal contentions were raised before the Court. First, the petitioner argued that Section 122(1) of the CGST Act was inapplicable to him as he was a non-taxable person and therefore not liable under that provision. Second, it was contended that Section 122(1A) of the Act, which came into force on 1 January 2021, could not be applied retrospectively to assessment years 2017–2020.The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. Pending disposal of the matter, the Court ordered a stay on recovery of the amount directed to be deposited, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the demand before the GST Department, either through the electronic ledger or cash ledger.
