GST INDIA Biz — Case Law

S.No	Name	Date of Order	Subject	Actions
1	ROHIT GARG & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	07-09-2026	Validity of proceedings and penalties under Section 122 of the CGST Act, including officer competence and natural justice. Applicability of Sections 122(1), 122(1A), 122(3)(a), amended Section 107(6), and writ jurisdiction under Article 226.	View Download
BackgroundThe proceedings arose from a GST investigation concerning allegations of issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods, wrongful availment or passing on of Input Tax Credit and allied contraventions under the CGST Act. The investigation involved search proceedings and reliance by the Department on statements, electronic material and handwritten records. The Petitioners disputed the allegations and contended that the material relied upon did not independently establish their involvement in the alleged transactions.SCNs were issued under Section 122 proposing penalties under various provisions of Section 122. The Petitioners challenged the consequential adjudication orders on several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction of the officer issuing the SCNs, non-supply of relied-upon documents, denial of effective personal hearing and cross-examination, reliance on untested statements/electronic material, multiplication of penalties under different clauses of Section 122(1), and alleged inconsistencies in findings arising from the same investigation.Court ObservationThe Court held that Section 122(1) predicates liability upon a person being a “taxable person”, whereas Section 122(1A) is differently worded and operates upon “any person” in the specified circumstances. However, whether a particular person satisfies the statutory description and the precise role attributed to that person are intertwined with the factual material. The Court therefore left the question of applicability of Section 122(1) to a person who is not a taxable person open, as the issue is pending before the Supreme Court.Regarding the competence of the officer issuing the SCN, the Court observed that the expression “proper officer” under Section 2(91) is function-specific and that merely being an officer of central tax does not automatically make an officer the proper officer for every statutory function. At the same time, the Court noted that Notification Nos. 02/2017 and 14/2017 had to be considered along with Sections 3 and 5 of the CGST Act.The Court was unable to hold that absence of a specific assignment under Section 2(91), by itself, rendered the concerned central tax officer legally without authority. Notification No.14/2017 invested DGGI officers with powers corresponding to officers of the relevant rank, while Notification No.02/2017 assigned specified functions. Therefore, the question of competence could not be determined merely by relying upon the subsequent Circular dated 27.10.2025.The Court further observed that the objection regarding officer competence was not a patent or self-evident absence of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226. It involved interpretation of the statutory scheme, notifications, the subsequent Circular and the relationship between proceedings under Sections 73/74 and consequential penalties under Section 122. These issues could be examined by the statutory Appellate Authority under Section 107.The Court also found that the remaining challenges—relating to replies, relied-upon documents, personal hearing, cross-examination, evidentiary material, multiplication of penalties, clubbing of financial years and alleged inconsistent findings—required detailed examination of the underlying record and factual position of the respective noticees.Importantly, the Court held that the amended pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6), effective from 01.10.2025, would not apply to appeals arising from SCNs issued before that date. Such appeals would be governed by Section 107(6) as it stood on the date on which the respective adjudicatory proceedings commenced.Final VerdictThe High Court disposed of the writ petitions on the ground that an efficacious statutory remedy was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and permitted the Petitioners to pursue statutory appeals. The Appellate Authority was directed to examine all grounds, including the issues left open by the judgment, independently and uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court.The Court specifically directed that appeals arising from SCNs issued before 01.10.2025 would be governed by the Section 107(6) pre-deposit provision applicable on the respective dates of issuance of the SCNs and could not be rejected merely because the Orders-in-Original were passed after 01.10.2025. The Petitioners were also permitted to seek exclusion of the period during which the writ petitions remained pending for limitation purposes.Cases Referred by CourtGaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone & Anr. — 2026:DHC:6124-DB.Considered on the applicability of the amended Section 107(6) pre-deposit requirement.Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. — SLP(C) No.18178/2025.The issue concerning applicability of Section 122(1) to a person who is not a “taxable person” was pending before the Supreme Court.Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West & Ors. — 2026:DHC:6609-DB.Considered regarding applicability of Section 122(1) to a person who is not a taxable person.Devender Singh v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West — 2025:DHC:9881-DB.Considered on the competence of the Additional Commissioner/officer to issue SCNs under Section 122.Sunil Chauhan, Proprietor of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North & Ors. — 2026:DHC:5477-DB.Considered regarding the relationship between proceedings under Sections 73/74 and consequential penalties under Section 122.Alokadei Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax — W.P. No.4426/2026.Considered on the competence of the officer and the relationship between the statutory adjudication and Section 122 penalty proceedings.Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. — [2025] 99 GSTL 7 (Allahabad).Considered on whether consequential Section 122 penalty forms part of the adjudicatory exercise under Sections 73/74; the Court noted that the decision was under challenge before the Supreme Court.Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. Commercial Steel Limited — (2022) 16 SCC 447.Referred to on the principles governing exercise of writ jurisdiction where an alternative statutory remedy exists.Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. — 1953 SCC OnLine SC 33.Referred to in the context of the contention concerning the substantive/vested nature of the right of appeal and the applicable pre-deposit requirement.Amit Manilal Haria & Ors. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise & Ors. — W.P. No.5001/2025 (Bombay High Court).Referred to concerning the contention against retrospective application of Section 122(1A).Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors. — SLP(Crl.) No.3543/2020.Referred to in relation to the safeguards concerning statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act.
ROHIT GARG & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 07-09-2026 Validity of proceedings and penalties under Section 122 of the CGST Act, including officer competence and natural justice. Applicability of Sections 122(1), 122(1A), 122(3)(a), amended Section 107(6), and writ jurisdiction under Article 226. BackgroundThe proceedings arose from a GST investigation concerning allegations of issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods, wrongful availment or passing on of Input Tax Credit and allied contraventions under the CGST Act. The investigation involved search proceedings and reliance by the Department on statements, electronic material and handwritten records. The Petitioners disputed the allegations and contended that the material relied upon did not independently establish their involvement in the alleged transactions.SCNs were issued under Section 122 proposing penalties under various provisions of Section 122. The Petitioners challenged the consequential adjudication orders on several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction of the officer issuing the SCNs, non-supply of relied-upon documents, denial of effective personal hearing and cross-examination, reliance on untested statements/electronic material, multiplication of penalties under different clauses of Section 122(1), and alleged inconsistencies in findings arising from the same investigation.Court ObservationThe Court held that Section 122(1) predicates liability upon a person being a “taxable person”, whereas Section 122(1A) is differently worded and operates upon “any person” in the specified circumstances. However, whether a particular person satisfies the statutory description and the precise role attributed to that person are intertwined with the factual material. The Court therefore left the question of applicability of Section 122(1) to a person who is not a taxable person open, as the issue is pending before the Supreme Court.Regarding the competence of the officer issuing the SCN, the Court observed that the expression “proper officer” under Section 2(91) is function-specific and that merely being an officer of central tax does not automatically make an officer the proper officer for every statutory function. At the same time, the Court noted that Notification Nos. 02/2017 and 14/2017 had to be considered along with Sections 3 and 5 of the CGST Act.The Court was unable to hold that absence of a specific assignment under Section 2(91), by itself, rendered the concerned central tax officer legally without authority. Notification No.14/2017 invested DGGI officers with powers corresponding to officers of the relevant rank, while Notification No.02/2017 assigned specified functions. Therefore, the question of competence could not be determined merely by relying upon the subsequent Circular dated 27.10.2025.The Court further observed that the objection regarding officer competence was not a patent or self-evident absence of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226. It involved interpretation of the statutory scheme, notifications, the subsequent Circular and the relationship between proceedings under Sections 73/74 and consequential penalties under Section 122. These issues could be examined by the statutory Appellate Authority under Section 107.The Court also found that the remaining challenges—relating to replies, relied-upon documents, personal hearing, cross-examination, evidentiary material, multiplication of penalties, clubbing of financial years and alleged inconsistent findings—required detailed examination of the underlying record and factual position of the respective noticees.Importantly, the Court held that the amended pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6), effective from 01.10.2025, would not apply to appeals arising from SCNs issued before that date. Such appeals would be governed by Section 107(6) as it stood on the date on which the respective adjudicatory proceedings commenced.Final VerdictThe High Court disposed of the writ petitions on the ground that an efficacious statutory remedy was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and permitted the Petitioners to pursue statutory appeals. The Appellate Authority was directed to examine all grounds, including the issues left open by the judgment, independently and uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court.The Court specifically directed that appeals arising from SCNs issued before 01.10.2025 would be governed by the Section 107(6) pre-deposit provision applicable on the respective dates of issuance of the SCNs and could not be rejected merely because the Orders-in-Original were passed after 01.10.2025. The Petitioners were also permitted to seek exclusion of the period during which the writ petitions remained pending for limitation purposes.Cases Referred by CourtGaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone & Anr. — 2026:DHC:6124-DB.Considered on the applicability of the amended Section 107(6) pre-deposit requirement.Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. — SLP(C) No.18178/2025.The issue concerning applicability of Section 122(1) to a person who is not a “taxable person” was pending before the Supreme Court.Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West & Ors. — 2026:DHC:6609-DB.Considered regarding applicability of Section 122(1) to a person who is not a taxable person.Devender Singh v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West — 2025:DHC:9881-DB.Considered on the competence of the Additional Commissioner/officer to issue SCNs under Section 122.Sunil Chauhan, Proprietor of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North & Ors. — 2026:DHC:5477-DB.Considered regarding the relationship between proceedings under Sections 73/74 and consequential penalties under Section 122.Alokadei Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax — W.P. No.4426/2026.Considered on the competence of the officer and the relationship between the statutory adjudication and Section 122 penalty proceedings.Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. — [2025] 99 GSTL 7 (Allahabad).Considered on whether consequential Section 122 penalty forms part of the adjudicatory exercise under Sections 73/74; the Court noted that the decision was under challenge before the Supreme Court.Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. Commercial Steel Limited — (2022) 16 SCC 447.Referred to on the principles governing exercise of writ jurisdiction where an alternative statutory remedy exists.Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. — 1953 SCC OnLine SC 33.Referred to in the context of the contention concerning the substantive/vested nature of the right of appeal and the applicable pre-deposit requirement.Amit Manilal Haria & Ors. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise & Ors. — W.P. No.5001/2025 (Bombay High Court).Referred to concerning the contention against retrospective application of Section 122(1A).Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors. — SLP(Crl.) No.3543/2020.Referred to in relation to the safeguards concerning statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act. View Download
2	Vodafone Idea Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 78(1), New Delhi & Ors.	18-08-2026	TDS Refund with Interest under Sections 244A & 244A(1A) and Adjustment against Outstanding Demands.	View Download
BACKGROUNDThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeals for various assessment years and the Assessing Officer subsequently passed appeal-effect orders determining substantial amounts refundable. Despite these orders, the refunds were not released. The Department insisted upon Form 26B, and the forms were rejected by referring to outstanding demands relating to the assessee and sister TANs.The Department defended its action by relying upon its practice and an SOP issued by the Centralized Processing Cell (TDS), contending that outstanding demands against associated TANs prevented processing of the refund. The assessee contended that Sections 200A and 201 operated in different fields and that Form 26B was not applicable once refund had arisen pursuant to an assessment or appellate order.COURT OBSERVATIONSThe Court examined Sections 200A and 201, Rule 31A and Form 26B and held that Section 201 deals with assessment of TDS, whereas Section 200A concerns adjustment of TDS before assessment at the CPC level. Rule 31A and Form 26B relate to that adjustment mechanism.The Court held that once a competent Assessing Officer has made an assessment under Section 201, or an appellate authority has passed an order giving rise to a refund, the refund becomes a vested and crystallised right of the assessee, subject to the Department's right to challenge the order in accordance with law. Such refund does not become subordinate to Section 200A or Rule 31A.The Court further held that the Assessing Officer or CPC cannot compel the assessee to furnish Form 26B once the refund arises pursuant to an assessment under Section 201 or an appellate order. Any withholding or adjustment has to be supported by a legally passed order under Section 245.Since the Department could not produce any order under Section 245 authorising withholding or adjustment, the Court held that reliance on outstanding demands against the assessee's PAN or sister TANs was legally untenable. The action was held to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution.FINAL VERDICTThe writ petitions were allowed. The respondents were directed to pay ₹53,09,56,470/- along with applicable interest under Sections 244A and 244A(1A) on or before 30.09.2026. If the amount was not credited by that date, the entire amount would carry additional interest at 1% per month over and above the statutory interest.
Vodafone Idea Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 78(1), New Delhi & Ors. 18-08-2026 TDS Refund with Interest under Sections 244A & 244A(1A) and Adjustment against Outstanding Demands. BACKGROUNDThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeals for various assessment years and the Assessing Officer subsequently passed appeal-effect orders determining substantial amounts refundable. Despite these orders, the refunds were not released. The Department insisted upon Form 26B, and the forms were rejected by referring to outstanding demands relating to the assessee and sister TANs.The Department defended its action by relying upon its practice and an SOP issued by the Centralized Processing Cell (TDS), contending that outstanding demands against associated TANs prevented processing of the refund. The assessee contended that Sections 200A and 201 operated in different fields and that Form 26B was not applicable once refund had arisen pursuant to an assessment or appellate order.COURT OBSERVATIONSThe Court examined Sections 200A and 201, Rule 31A and Form 26B and held that Section 201 deals with assessment of TDS, whereas Section 200A concerns adjustment of TDS before assessment at the CPC level. Rule 31A and Form 26B relate to that adjustment mechanism.The Court held that once a competent Assessing Officer has made an assessment under Section 201, or an appellate authority has passed an order giving rise to a refund, the refund becomes a vested and crystallised right of the assessee, subject to the Department's right to challenge the order in accordance with law. Such refund does not become subordinate to Section 200A or Rule 31A.The Court further held that the Assessing Officer or CPC cannot compel the assessee to furnish Form 26B once the refund arises pursuant to an assessment under Section 201 or an appellate order. Any withholding or adjustment has to be supported by a legally passed order under Section 245.Since the Department could not produce any order under Section 245 authorising withholding or adjustment, the Court held that reliance on outstanding demands against the assessee's PAN or sister TANs was legally untenable. The action was held to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution.FINAL VERDICTThe writ petitions were allowed. The respondents were directed to pay ₹53,09,56,470/- along with applicable interest under Sections 244A and 244A(1A) on or before 30.09.2026. If the amount was not credited by that date, the entire amount would carry additional interest at 1% per month over and above the statutory interest. View Download
3	ARUN KUMAR JAIN & ORS. v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST COMMISSIONERATE & ORS.	13-08-2026	Challenge to penalties under Sections 74, 76(2) & 122(1) of CGST Act for alleged fraudulent ITC; issues on pre-deposit under Section 107(6) and penalty on non-taxable persons.	View Download
BACKGROUNDCommon adjudicatory proceedings concerned allegations that companies had fraudulently availed and utilised ITC on invoices without corresponding supply of goods. The individuals connected with those companies were proceeded against for penalties under Sections 74, 76(2) and 122(1), although no tax demand was proposed against them in their individual capacities.The petitioners challenged the adjudication order and also raised issues concerning the requirement of pre-deposit for pursuing statutory appeals. The SCNs had been issued in 2020, whereas the proviso to Section 107(6) was substituted with effect from 01.10.2025.COURT OBSERVATIONThe Court held that an appeal under Section 107 was maintainable against the impugned order and that the appellate remedy was governed by Section 107(6) as it stood when the respective SCNs were issued, since the adjudicatory proceedings had commenced before the amendment effective from 01.10.2025.On the question of Section 122(1), the Court noted that its applicability to a person who is not a taxable person was pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, judicial propriety required the Court not to express an opinion on that issue; the remaining factual and legal grounds could appropriately be examined in statutory appeal.FINAL VERDICTThe writ petitions were disposed of by relegating the petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107. All grounds were left open before the Appellate Authority. The pre-deposit requirement was directed to be governed by Section 107(6) as it stood on the dates of issuance of the respective SCNs. CASE REFERRED BY COURTGaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone & Anr. — High Court of Delhi — 31.07.2026.Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. — Supreme Court of India — 04.08.2025.
ARUN KUMAR JAIN & ORS. v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST COMMISSIONERATE & ORS. 13-08-2026 Challenge to penalties under Sections 74, 76(2) & 122(1) of CGST Act for alleged fraudulent ITC; issues on pre-deposit under Section 107(6) and penalty on non-taxable persons. BACKGROUNDCommon adjudicatory proceedings concerned allegations that companies had fraudulently availed and utilised ITC on invoices without corresponding supply of goods. The individuals connected with those companies were proceeded against for penalties under Sections 74, 76(2) and 122(1), although no tax demand was proposed against them in their individual capacities.The petitioners challenged the adjudication order and also raised issues concerning the requirement of pre-deposit for pursuing statutory appeals. The SCNs had been issued in 2020, whereas the proviso to Section 107(6) was substituted with effect from 01.10.2025.COURT OBSERVATIONThe Court held that an appeal under Section 107 was maintainable against the impugned order and that the appellate remedy was governed by Section 107(6) as it stood when the respective SCNs were issued, since the adjudicatory proceedings had commenced before the amendment effective from 01.10.2025.On the question of Section 122(1), the Court noted that its applicability to a person who is not a taxable person was pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, judicial propriety required the Court not to express an opinion on that issue; the remaining factual and legal grounds could appropriately be examined in statutory appeal.FINAL VERDICTThe writ petitions were disposed of by relegating the petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107. All grounds were left open before the Appellate Authority. The pre-deposit requirement was directed to be governed by Section 107(6) as it stood on the dates of issuance of the respective SCNs. CASE REFERRED BY COURTGaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone & Anr. — High Court of Delhi — 31.07.2026.Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. — Supreme Court of India — 04.08.2025. View Download
4	PEI Industries & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.	29-05-2026	Whether a writ petition is maintainable challenging an Order in Original passed by Central GST Authorities under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017, when State GST Authorities had already closed proceedings on the same set of documents under Section 73, and whe	View Download
BACKGROUNDThe Petitioners challenged an Order in Original dated 30th March, 2026, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate, primarily on the ground that the Central GST proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The State GST Authorities, exercising powers under Section 73 of the Act, had previously closed proceedings against the Petitioners on the very same set of documents. Thereafter, the Central GST Authorities initiated proceedings under Section 74 of the Act based on the very same evidence and passed an adverse Order in Original.RELEVANT FACTSThe Petitioners contended that the documents submitted in response to the Show Cause Notice were the identical set of documents which had formed the basis for closure of proceedings by the State GST Authorities under Section 73; however, the Central GST Authorities refused to accept the same. It was further urged that no notice was issued to the Petitioners for producing additional documents which the respondents intended to obtain. Out of four dates for personal hearing as noted in the impugned order, hearing was effectively granted only on two days. The Petitioners also contended the impugned order is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution as the Central GST Authorities passed an indifferent order on the same set of documents on which the State GST Authorities had granted closure. The Petitioners further contended that material found sufficient by the State GST Authorities was binding on the Central GST Authorities for closure of proceedings under Section 74.The Respondents raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, urging that an efficacious alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available. It was further contended by the Respondents that Section 73 and Section 74 operate in entirely different arenas, that appreciation of evidence is the domain of the Appellate Authority, and that a speaking order was duly passed after grant of hearing. In rejoinder, the Petitioners urged that relegation to alternate remedy would burden them with the obligation of statutory pre-deposit. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim — Crucial Paragraphs)Para 9: "It is apparent that Section 73 and Section 74 of the Act operates in different arenas. The language of said sections, recourse to be taken in regard to said sections, can very well be looked into by its face value."Para 10: "Just because the petitioner was exonerated in the proceedings under Section 73, by itself, cannot lead to the petitioner being proceeded against by the Central GST Authorities under Section 74 of the Act. Both these sections operate on altogether different considerations."Para 11: "Apart from above, the material that was placed on record by petitioner in response to Show Cause Notice is very much independently available for scrutiny and appreciation."Para 13: "Appreciation, re-appreciation of evidence in regard to same are vested with the competent authorities. It is not in dispute that jurisdiction of Appellate Authority is restricted, rather it can be inferred from the very language of the jurisdiction vested in the Appellate Authority that it can reappreciate the entire evidence and if so required, may permit the petitioner to produce additional evidence."Para 14: "Merely because the petitioner shall be burdened with the satisfaction of condition of statutory pre-deposit, that by itself, cannot give leverage to the petitioner to claim before this Court that inappropriate appreciation of evidence or non-grant of sufficient opportunity to produce additional evidence to the satisfaction, amounts to denial of personal hearing. Re-appreciation and production of additional evidence can be very well looked into by the Appellate Authority."Para 15: "In that eventuality, we see no reason to exercise writ jurisdiction in the present matter, particularly, when the proceedings are barred by statutory remedy of appeal."FINAL VERDICTThe Writ Petition stands dismissed. The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction holding that an efficacious alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available, the Appellate Authority is fully empowered to re-appreciate evidence and permit production of additional evidence, and the burden of statutory pre-deposit alone is not a ground to bypass the appeal mechanism. 👎
PEI Industries & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 29-05-2026 Whether a writ petition is maintainable challenging an Order in Original passed by Central GST Authorities under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017, when State GST Authorities had already closed proceedings on the same set of documents under Section 73, and whe BACKGROUNDThe Petitioners challenged an Order in Original dated 30th March, 2026, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate, primarily on the ground that the Central GST proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The State GST Authorities, exercising powers under Section 73 of the Act, had previously closed proceedings against the Petitioners on the very same set of documents. Thereafter, the Central GST Authorities initiated proceedings under Section 74 of the Act based on the very same evidence and passed an adverse Order in Original.RELEVANT FACTSThe Petitioners contended that the documents submitted in response to the Show Cause Notice were the identical set of documents which had formed the basis for closure of proceedings by the State GST Authorities under Section 73; however, the Central GST Authorities refused to accept the same. It was further urged that no notice was issued to the Petitioners for producing additional documents which the respondents intended to obtain. Out of four dates for personal hearing as noted in the impugned order, hearing was effectively granted only on two days. The Petitioners also contended the impugned order is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution as the Central GST Authorities passed an indifferent order on the same set of documents on which the State GST Authorities had granted closure. The Petitioners further contended that material found sufficient by the State GST Authorities was binding on the Central GST Authorities for closure of proceedings under Section 74.The Respondents raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, urging that an efficacious alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available. It was further contended by the Respondents that Section 73 and Section 74 operate in entirely different arenas, that appreciation of evidence is the domain of the Appellate Authority, and that a speaking order was duly passed after grant of hearing. In rejoinder, the Petitioners urged that relegation to alternate remedy would burden them with the obligation of statutory pre-deposit. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim — Crucial Paragraphs)Para 9: "It is apparent that Section 73 and Section 74 of the Act operates in different arenas. The language of said sections, recourse to be taken in regard to said sections, can very well be looked into by its face value."Para 10: "Just because the petitioner was exonerated in the proceedings under Section 73, by itself, cannot lead to the petitioner being proceeded against by the Central GST Authorities under Section 74 of the Act. Both these sections operate on altogether different considerations."Para 11: "Apart from above, the material that was placed on record by petitioner in response to Show Cause Notice is very much independently available for scrutiny and appreciation."Para 13: "Appreciation, re-appreciation of evidence in regard to same are vested with the competent authorities. It is not in dispute that jurisdiction of Appellate Authority is restricted, rather it can be inferred from the very language of the jurisdiction vested in the Appellate Authority that it can reappreciate the entire evidence and if so required, may permit the petitioner to produce additional evidence."Para 14: "Merely because the petitioner shall be burdened with the satisfaction of condition of statutory pre-deposit, that by itself, cannot give leverage to the petitioner to claim before this Court that inappropriate appreciation of evidence or non-grant of sufficient opportunity to produce additional evidence to the satisfaction, amounts to denial of personal hearing. Re-appreciation and production of additional evidence can be very well looked into by the Appellate Authority."Para 15: "In that eventuality, we see no reason to exercise writ jurisdiction in the present matter, particularly, when the proceedings are barred by statutory remedy of appeal."FINAL VERDICTThe Writ Petition stands dismissed. The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction holding that an efficacious alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available, the Appellate Authority is fully empowered to re-appreciate evidence and permit production of additional evidence, and the burden of statutory pre-deposit alone is not a ground to bypass the appeal mechanism. 👎 View Download
5	A.G. and Sons HUF & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.	12-05-2026	Whether an order passed under the CGST Act by an officer who did not personally conduct the hearing violates the principle of natural justice — specifically the maxim	View Download
BackgroundAn impugned order dated 30th December 2025 was passed by Mr. Debjit Banerjee, an officer of the rank of Additional Commissioner. The personal hearing in the matter, however, had been conducted by Mr. Sammer Kumar Jha, another Additional Commissioner who had earlier been manning the same post. Upon Mr. Jha's transfer, Mr. Banerjee assumed charge and passed the final order. The Petitioners challenged the impugned order before the Delhi High Court by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All three petitions raised identical issues and were decided by a common order, with the facts in W.P.(C) 2630/2026 taken as the lead matter.Relevant FactsThe Petitioners contended that the personal hearing was granted by Mr. Sammer Kumar Jha, but the final order was passed by Mr. Debjit Banerjee who had not conducted that hearing — a clear violation of the principle that the deciding authority must itself hear the parties. The Revenue contended that there was no statutory embargo preventing the successor officer from passing the order based on the notes of the final hearing prepared by Mr. Jha. When confronted on this point, the Court was unable to satisfy itself that any such notes by Mr. Jha were actually available to or considered by Mr. Banerjee before passing the impugned order. The Revenue further raised a preliminary objection that the Petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal and the writ petition was therefore not maintainable. The Petitioners also raised an additional grievance that the documents relied upon in the proceedings were not supplied to them, which itself amounted to a denial of opportunity of hearing.Court Observations (Verbatim)"Such conduct, in our opinion, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and order impugned as such goes contrary to the constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India."— Para 6 (Court's own observation)"In the aforesaid background, we have no hesitation to entertain the present petition, even if, there exits an alternate remedy as the order impugned is passed in violation of principles of natural justice."— Para 9 (Court's own observation)From Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Assn. v. Designated Authority & Ors. — relied upon by Court (Para 7):"if one person hears and other decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality."— Para 83, as quoted in Para 7"In the present case, admittedly, the entire material had been collected by the predecessor of the DA; he had allowed the interested parties and/or their representatives to present the relevant information before him in terms of Rule 6(6) but the final findings in the form of an order were recorded by the successor DA, who had no occasion to hear the appellants herein. In our opinion, the final order passed by the new DA offends the basic principle of natural justice. Thus, the impugned notification having been issued on the basis of the final findings of the DA, who failed to follow the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. It is quashed accordingly."— Para 84, as quoted in Para 7From Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others — (1998) 8 SCC 1 — relied upon by Court (Para 8):"Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged…"— Para 15, as quoted in Para 8Final VerdictAll three writ petitions allowed. Impugned order dated 30th December 2025 set aside as being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner permitted to appear before the Additional Commissioner with written submissions on 25th May 2026. The Respondent directed to supply the documents sought by the Petitioner and to deal with the matter afresh. All rights and contentions of the Petitioner kept open.Cases Referred by CourtAutomotive Tyre Manufacturers Assn. v. Designated Authority and Ors.Supreme Court of India \| Citation not specified in the order \| Paras 83 & 84 relied upon — held that when one officer hears and another decides, personal hearing becomes an empty formality and the final order offends the basic principle of natural justice.Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and OthersSupreme Court of India
A.G. and Sons HUF & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 12-05-2026 Whether an order passed under the CGST Act by an officer who did not personally conduct the hearing violates the principle of natural justice — specifically the maxim BackgroundAn impugned order dated 30th December 2025 was passed by Mr. Debjit Banerjee, an officer of the rank of Additional Commissioner. The personal hearing in the matter, however, had been conducted by Mr. Sammer Kumar Jha, another Additional Commissioner who had earlier been manning the same post. Upon Mr. Jha's transfer, Mr. Banerjee assumed charge and passed the final order. The Petitioners challenged the impugned order before the Delhi High Court by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All three petitions raised identical issues and were decided by a common order, with the facts in W.P.(C) 2630/2026 taken as the lead matter.Relevant FactsThe Petitioners contended that the personal hearing was granted by Mr. Sammer Kumar Jha, but the final order was passed by Mr. Debjit Banerjee who had not conducted that hearing — a clear violation of the principle that the deciding authority must itself hear the parties. The Revenue contended that there was no statutory embargo preventing the successor officer from passing the order based on the notes of the final hearing prepared by Mr. Jha. When confronted on this point, the Court was unable to satisfy itself that any such notes by Mr. Jha were actually available to or considered by Mr. Banerjee before passing the impugned order. The Revenue further raised a preliminary objection that the Petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal and the writ petition was therefore not maintainable. The Petitioners also raised an additional grievance that the documents relied upon in the proceedings were not supplied to them, which itself amounted to a denial of opportunity of hearing.Court Observations (Verbatim)"Such conduct, in our opinion, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and order impugned as such goes contrary to the constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India."— Para 6 (Court's own observation)"In the aforesaid background, we have no hesitation to entertain the present petition, even if, there exits an alternate remedy as the order impugned is passed in violation of principles of natural justice."— Para 9 (Court's own observation)From Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Assn. v. Designated Authority & Ors. — relied upon by Court (Para 7):"if one person hears and other decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality."— Para 83, as quoted in Para 7"In the present case, admittedly, the entire material had been collected by the predecessor of the DA; he had allowed the interested parties and/or their representatives to present the relevant information before him in terms of Rule 6(6) but the final findings in the form of an order were recorded by the successor DA, who had no occasion to hear the appellants herein. In our opinion, the final order passed by the new DA offends the basic principle of natural justice. Thus, the impugned notification having been issued on the basis of the final findings of the DA, who failed to follow the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. It is quashed accordingly."— Para 84, as quoted in Para 7From Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others — (1998) 8 SCC 1 — relied upon by Court (Para 8):"Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged…"— Para 15, as quoted in Para 8Final VerdictAll three writ petitions allowed. Impugned order dated 30th December 2025 set aside as being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner permitted to appear before the Additional Commissioner with written submissions on 25th May 2026. The Respondent directed to supply the documents sought by the Petitioner and to deal with the matter afresh. All rights and contentions of the Petitioner kept open.Cases Referred by CourtAutomotive Tyre Manufacturers Assn. v. Designated Authority and Ors.Supreme Court of India \| Citation not specified in the order \| Paras 83 & 84 relied upon — held that when one officer hears and another decides, personal hearing becomes an empty formality and the final order offends the basic principle of natural justice.Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and OthersSupreme Court of India View Download
6	NHD Motors vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.	15-04-2026	Validity of demand order passed ex-parte under Section 73 of Delhi GST Act, 2017 where SCN was uploaded only on the obscure 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal, denying the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.	View Download
BackgroundNHD Motors, a GST-registered partnership firm, was issued an SCN dated 9th December, 2023 for FY 2018-19 under Section 73 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017. The SCN was uploaded exclusively on the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal — a tab that was not prominently visible to taxpayers prior to 16th January, 2024 (when the portal was subsequently modified to make this tab visible). Since the petitioner was unaware of the SCN, no reply was filed. Consequently, an ex-parte demand order dated 5th April, 2024 was passed raising a demand of ₹23,67,282/-. The petitioner contended that no excess ITC had been availed and that the amount was also mis-calculated. The respondent argued that a reminder was issued on 27th February, 2024 (after 16th January, 2024) and thus effective service was achieved.Court Observations (Verbatim)"There is no dispute that, after 16th January, 2024, certain changes were introduced on the GST portal and the 'Additional Notices Tab' was made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN had been issued prior to the said date. In such circumstances, and considering that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and had not filed any reply to the SCN, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.""This Court is unable to agree with the aforesaid contention of the respondent. The reminder pertained to the SCN uploaded prior to 16th January, 2024 in the same 'Additional Notices Tab' in which the SCN itself had been uploaded, a tab, in which the SCN was not visible to the petitioner. In such circumstances, where the SCN itself was never effectively served upon the petitioner, any subsequent communication styled as a reminder in respect thereof cannot, in law, be treated as a valid or effective reminder to the said SCN."Final VerdictThe impugned demand order dated 5th April, 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded. The petitioner is granted time till 8th May, 2026 to file reply to the SCN; the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a personal hearing notice, duly communicated to the petitioner, and pass a fresh order after considering the reply and submissions. Access to the GST portal is to be provided to the petitioner for uploading reply and accessing related documents.
NHD Motors vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 15-04-2026 Validity of demand order passed ex-parte under Section 73 of Delhi GST Act, 2017 where SCN was uploaded only on the obscure 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal, denying the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing. BackgroundNHD Motors, a GST-registered partnership firm, was issued an SCN dated 9th December, 2023 for FY 2018-19 under Section 73 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017. The SCN was uploaded exclusively on the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal — a tab that was not prominently visible to taxpayers prior to 16th January, 2024 (when the portal was subsequently modified to make this tab visible). Since the petitioner was unaware of the SCN, no reply was filed. Consequently, an ex-parte demand order dated 5th April, 2024 was passed raising a demand of ₹23,67,282/-. The petitioner contended that no excess ITC had been availed and that the amount was also mis-calculated. The respondent argued that a reminder was issued on 27th February, 2024 (after 16th January, 2024) and thus effective service was achieved.Court Observations (Verbatim)"There is no dispute that, after 16th January, 2024, certain changes were introduced on the GST portal and the 'Additional Notices Tab' was made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN had been issued prior to the said date. In such circumstances, and considering that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and had not filed any reply to the SCN, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.""This Court is unable to agree with the aforesaid contention of the respondent. The reminder pertained to the SCN uploaded prior to 16th January, 2024 in the same 'Additional Notices Tab' in which the SCN itself had been uploaded, a tab, in which the SCN was not visible to the petitioner. In such circumstances, where the SCN itself was never effectively served upon the petitioner, any subsequent communication styled as a reminder in respect thereof cannot, in law, be treated as a valid or effective reminder to the said SCN."Final VerdictThe impugned demand order dated 5th April, 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded. The petitioner is granted time till 8th May, 2026 to file reply to the SCN; the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a personal hearing notice, duly communicated to the petitioner, and pass a fresh order after considering the reply and submissions. Access to the GST portal is to be provided to the petitioner for uploading reply and accessing related documents. View Download
7	Avik Televentures Private Limited v. Office of the GST Officer,	30-03-2026	Whether an Order-in-Original confirming a substantial GST demand is liable to be quashed where the Adjudicating Authority issued a	View Download
BackgroundThe Petitioner, engaged in trading and export of branded mobile phones, was subjected to a Special Audit for Financial Year 2021-22 appointed under Section 66 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017 vide email dated 06.12.2024. Upon completion of the audit, observations were communicated on 03.03.2025, to which the Petitioner filed a detailed response on 02.04.2025. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 11.09.2025, based on the special audit report dated 27.03.2025, raised a demand of Rs. 33,54,21,609/- requiring discharge within 7 days. A Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2025 was subsequently issued proposing a demand of Rs. 58,02,79,384/-, with a reply deadline and personal hearing fixed for 28.10.2025. The Petitioner filed a detailed reply along with supporting documents on 24.10.2025, having sought a short adjournment of the hearing. Then, on 27.12.2025 at 05:20 PM, a communication styled as "Reminder-1" was issued calling for additional documents by 29.12.2025 and fixing a personal hearing for 30.12.2025 — the intervening 28.12.2025 being a Sunday. Despite a request for a 7-day extension made on 29.12.2025, the Order-in-Original was passed on 31.12.2025 confirming a demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- (including tax, interest and penalty) — on the very same day as the last personal hearing.Critical Timeline27.12.2025 — 05:20 PMReminder-1 issued demanding voluminous documents including certified bank statements by 29.12.2025; personal hearing fixed for 30.12.202528.12.2025Sunday — no working day available29.12.2025Petitioner sought 7-day adjournment — request not considered30.12.2025 & 31.12.2025Personal hearings held; petitioner's authorised representative participated; additional reply filed on 31.12.202531.12.2025 — same dayOIO passed confirming demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- on the very day the hearing concluded — the last date under Section 73(10) limitationSeparate SCN dated 04.07.2025 for the same FY 2021-22, also adjudicated on 31.12.2025, resulted in the Petitioner being discharged on all counts — including the very same ITC issues — creating a directly contradictory finding in the impugned OIO.Relevant FactsThe Petitioner raised three distinct grounds: first, that the opportunity of hearing was illusory and not real — Reminder-1 was issued at 05:20 PM on 27.12.2025, with 28.12.2025 being a Sunday, leaving less than one effective working day to collate voluminous documents including certified bank statements and records running into several hundred pages; second, that the OIO was passed with undue haste — the personal hearing concluded and the OIO was signed on the very same date (31.12.2025), the last date permissible under Section 73(10), raising a legitimate apprehension that material placed on record was not adequately considered; and third, that parallel proceedings were run on the same subject matter for the same FY, with a separate SCN dated 04.07.2025 having been adjudicated on the same date resulting in complete discharge of the Petitioner, rendering the impugned OIO internally contradictory. Additionally, a complete copy of the OIO was not furnished, only a partial copy having been placed on record. The Revenue contended that the petition was not maintainable given an appeal remedy under Section 107, that the petitioner had appeared and filed an additional reply, that the two SCNs pertained to distinct transactions, and that the order was reasoned.Court Observations (Verbatim)"Reminder-1 was issued on 27.12.2025 at 05:20 PM, calling upon the petitioner to furnish additional documents by 29.12.2025 and to appear for personal hearing on 30.12.2025. Admittedly, 28.12.2025 was a Sunday. The petitioner, therefore, had less than one effective working day to collate the material and respond."— Para 28"The nature of documents sought, including certified bank statements and voluminous records running into several hundred pages, could not have been reasonably procured and furnished within such a truncated timeline. The petitioner, in fact, sought a short adjournment of seven days on 29.12.2025. The record does not indicate that the said request was duly considered."— Para 29"Though it is the stand of the respondent that the petitioner participated in the personal hearing on 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025, mere participation cannot be constructed as compliance with the requirement of affording a fair and effective opportunity. The opportunity contemplated under Sections 66(4) and 75(4) of the CGST/DGST Act is not a mere formality but must be real, reasonable and effective."— Para 30"The timeline, as notice hereinabove, clearly demonstrates that the opportunity afforded to the petitioner was illusory. The petitioner was neither granted adequate time to place the requisite material on record nor to effectively respond to the issues raised in the special audit and the SCN."— Para 31"The submission of the respondent that the petitioner had earlier filed a reply to the SCN does not dilute the requirement of granting a reasonable opportunity when additional material is sought to be relied upon. Once further documents were called for and a hearing was fixed, the respondent was under an obligation to ensure that sufficient time was afforded."— Para 32"This Court also finds merit in the contention of the petitioner that the OIO has been passed with undue haste. The personal hearing concluded on 31.12.2025 and the OIO has been passed on the very same date, confirming a substantial liability. In the facts of the present case, such haste raises a legitimate apprehension that the material placed on record may not have been adequately considered by the Adjudicating Authority."— Para 33"The contention of the respondent regarding availability of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Act does not merit acceptance in the present case. It is well settled that where an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice the existence of an alternate remedy would not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction."— Para 34Final VerdictPetition allowed. OIO dated 31.12.2025 confirming demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- quashed and set aside. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication as a "last chance" — Petitioner to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 06.04.2026 with written submissions and required documents. Authority directed to grant real opportunity of hearing, consider all contentions, and pass an expeditious reasoned order. Court has not gone into the merits; all rights and remedies of both parties kept open.
Avik Televentures Private Limited v. Office of the GST Officer, 30-03-2026 Whether an Order-in-Original confirming a substantial GST demand is liable to be quashed where the Adjudicating Authority issued a BackgroundThe Petitioner, engaged in trading and export of branded mobile phones, was subjected to a Special Audit for Financial Year 2021-22 appointed under Section 66 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017 vide email dated 06.12.2024. Upon completion of the audit, observations were communicated on 03.03.2025, to which the Petitioner filed a detailed response on 02.04.2025. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 11.09.2025, based on the special audit report dated 27.03.2025, raised a demand of Rs. 33,54,21,609/- requiring discharge within 7 days. A Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2025 was subsequently issued proposing a demand of Rs. 58,02,79,384/-, with a reply deadline and personal hearing fixed for 28.10.2025. The Petitioner filed a detailed reply along with supporting documents on 24.10.2025, having sought a short adjournment of the hearing. Then, on 27.12.2025 at 05:20 PM, a communication styled as "Reminder-1" was issued calling for additional documents by 29.12.2025 and fixing a personal hearing for 30.12.2025 — the intervening 28.12.2025 being a Sunday. Despite a request for a 7-day extension made on 29.12.2025, the Order-in-Original was passed on 31.12.2025 confirming a demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- (including tax, interest and penalty) — on the very same day as the last personal hearing.Critical Timeline27.12.2025 — 05:20 PMReminder-1 issued demanding voluminous documents including certified bank statements by 29.12.2025; personal hearing fixed for 30.12.202528.12.2025Sunday — no working day available29.12.2025Petitioner sought 7-day adjournment — request not considered30.12.2025 & 31.12.2025Personal hearings held; petitioner's authorised representative participated; additional reply filed on 31.12.202531.12.2025 — same dayOIO passed confirming demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- on the very day the hearing concluded — the last date under Section 73(10) limitationSeparate SCN dated 04.07.2025 for the same FY 2021-22, also adjudicated on 31.12.2025, resulted in the Petitioner being discharged on all counts — including the very same ITC issues — creating a directly contradictory finding in the impugned OIO.Relevant FactsThe Petitioner raised three distinct grounds: first, that the opportunity of hearing was illusory and not real — Reminder-1 was issued at 05:20 PM on 27.12.2025, with 28.12.2025 being a Sunday, leaving less than one effective working day to collate voluminous documents including certified bank statements and records running into several hundred pages; second, that the OIO was passed with undue haste — the personal hearing concluded and the OIO was signed on the very same date (31.12.2025), the last date permissible under Section 73(10), raising a legitimate apprehension that material placed on record was not adequately considered; and third, that parallel proceedings were run on the same subject matter for the same FY, with a separate SCN dated 04.07.2025 having been adjudicated on the same date resulting in complete discharge of the Petitioner, rendering the impugned OIO internally contradictory. Additionally, a complete copy of the OIO was not furnished, only a partial copy having been placed on record. The Revenue contended that the petition was not maintainable given an appeal remedy under Section 107, that the petitioner had appeared and filed an additional reply, that the two SCNs pertained to distinct transactions, and that the order was reasoned.Court Observations (Verbatim)"Reminder-1 was issued on 27.12.2025 at 05:20 PM, calling upon the petitioner to furnish additional documents by 29.12.2025 and to appear for personal hearing on 30.12.2025. Admittedly, 28.12.2025 was a Sunday. The petitioner, therefore, had less than one effective working day to collate the material and respond."— Para 28"The nature of documents sought, including certified bank statements and voluminous records running into several hundred pages, could not have been reasonably procured and furnished within such a truncated timeline. The petitioner, in fact, sought a short adjournment of seven days on 29.12.2025. The record does not indicate that the said request was duly considered."— Para 29"Though it is the stand of the respondent that the petitioner participated in the personal hearing on 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025, mere participation cannot be constructed as compliance with the requirement of affording a fair and effective opportunity. The opportunity contemplated under Sections 66(4) and 75(4) of the CGST/DGST Act is not a mere formality but must be real, reasonable and effective."— Para 30"The timeline, as notice hereinabove, clearly demonstrates that the opportunity afforded to the petitioner was illusory. The petitioner was neither granted adequate time to place the requisite material on record nor to effectively respond to the issues raised in the special audit and the SCN."— Para 31"The submission of the respondent that the petitioner had earlier filed a reply to the SCN does not dilute the requirement of granting a reasonable opportunity when additional material is sought to be relied upon. Once further documents were called for and a hearing was fixed, the respondent was under an obligation to ensure that sufficient time was afforded."— Para 32"This Court also finds merit in the contention of the petitioner that the OIO has been passed with undue haste. The personal hearing concluded on 31.12.2025 and the OIO has been passed on the very same date, confirming a substantial liability. In the facts of the present case, such haste raises a legitimate apprehension that the material placed on record may not have been adequately considered by the Adjudicating Authority."— Para 33"The contention of the respondent regarding availability of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Act does not merit acceptance in the present case. It is well settled that where an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice the existence of an alternate remedy would not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction."— Para 34Final VerdictPetition allowed. OIO dated 31.12.2025 confirming demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- quashed and set aside. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication as a "last chance" — Petitioner to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 06.04.2026 with written submissions and required documents. Authority directed to grant real opportunity of hearing, consider all contentions, and pass an expeditious reasoned order. Court has not gone into the merits; all rights and remedies of both parties kept open. View Download
8	Lovelesh Singhal v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Ors.	02-02-2026	Validity of CBIC Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 — Authority to Assign	View Download
Background & IssueThe petitioner, proprietor of M/s Shivani Overseas, challenged a summons dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 in connection with an inquiry relating to M/s Midas Marketing Inc. The summons directed the petitioner to appear and produce bank statements, sales invoices, and ledgers. The summons was issued by the Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer in reliance upon Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (now CBIC). The core legal issue before the Court was whether the said circular was validly issued — specifically, whether the Board (CBIC) had the authority to assign functions to "proper officers" under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, or whether such power vested exclusively in the "Commissioner in the Board" as defined under Section 2(25) read with Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that only the "Commissioner in the Board" — being a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board — could assign such functions, and that the circular issued in the name of the "Board" was therefore without legal authority, rendering the summons issued thereunder void.Court's DecisionThe Court, after examining the statutory framework, held that there was no ground to interfere with the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017. It observed that since the Commissioner is admittedly a constituent part of the Board, the assignment of functions through the circular must be presumed to have been initiated at the level of the Commissioner in the Board and duly approved by the Board, as contemplated under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority — he merely relied upon the language of the preamble of the circular using the word "Board," without pleading or proving through documents that the required procedure under Section 168(2) was not followed. Applying the well-settled principle of presumption of validity of subordinate legislation — as reaffirmed in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 517, G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6 — the Court held that the onus lay on the petitioner to prove invalidity, which he failed to discharge.Most Relevant Court Observation"In law, we have to presume that the circular is valid and the onus is on the petitioner to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority or legal approval." The Court further observed: "The fact remains that it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is also a part of the Board. Once it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is part of the Board, and sub-section (2) of Section 168 contemplates that the assignment of functions to the Central Tax Officers is upon a proposal of the Commissioner in the Board, we see no reason to disbelieve that the same was not under the authority of the Commissioner, which was approved by the Board as required under sub-section (2) of Section 168."Cases ReferredState of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 \| G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014 \| Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6
Lovelesh Singhal v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Ors. 02-02-2026 Validity of CBIC Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 — Authority to Assign Background & IssueThe petitioner, proprietor of M/s Shivani Overseas, challenged a summons dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 in connection with an inquiry relating to M/s Midas Marketing Inc. The summons directed the petitioner to appear and produce bank statements, sales invoices, and ledgers. The summons was issued by the Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer in reliance upon Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (now CBIC). The core legal issue before the Court was whether the said circular was validly issued — specifically, whether the Board (CBIC) had the authority to assign functions to "proper officers" under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, or whether such power vested exclusively in the "Commissioner in the Board" as defined under Section 2(25) read with Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that only the "Commissioner in the Board" — being a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board — could assign such functions, and that the circular issued in the name of the "Board" was therefore without legal authority, rendering the summons issued thereunder void.Court's DecisionThe Court, after examining the statutory framework, held that there was no ground to interfere with the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017. It observed that since the Commissioner is admittedly a constituent part of the Board, the assignment of functions through the circular must be presumed to have been initiated at the level of the Commissioner in the Board and duly approved by the Board, as contemplated under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority — he merely relied upon the language of the preamble of the circular using the word "Board," without pleading or proving through documents that the required procedure under Section 168(2) was not followed. Applying the well-settled principle of presumption of validity of subordinate legislation — as reaffirmed in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 517, G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6 — the Court held that the onus lay on the petitioner to prove invalidity, which he failed to discharge.Most Relevant Court Observation"In law, we have to presume that the circular is valid and the onus is on the petitioner to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority or legal approval." The Court further observed: "The fact remains that it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is also a part of the Board. Once it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is part of the Board, and sub-section (2) of Section 168 contemplates that the assignment of functions to the Central Tax Officers is upon a proposal of the Commissioner in the Board, we see no reason to disbelieve that the same was not under the authority of the Commissioner, which was approved by the Board as required under sub-section (2) of Section 168."Cases ReferredState of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 \| G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014 \| Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6 View Download
9	India Retail Mart v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors.	16-12-2025	Challenge to GST adjudication order and validity of notifications extending limitation under Section 168A of CGST Act	View Download
Facts :The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 29 August 2024 arising from a show cause notice for FY 2019–2020, along with certain GST notifications extending limitation. The petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice but did not avail personal hearing. It contended that its reply was not properly considered and sought relief against the demand. The challenge to notifications was also part of a larger batch of cases pending before various High Courts and the Supreme Court.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. It observed that the petitioner had filed a reply which was considered, and therefore the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 31 January 2026 with pre-deposit, with a direction that such appeal shall not be rejected on limitation. The outcome was made subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP concerning validity of the notifications.Cases Referred:DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
India Retail Mart v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors. 16-12-2025 Challenge to GST adjudication order and validity of notifications extending limitation under Section 168A of CGST Act Facts :The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 29 August 2024 arising from a show cause notice for FY 2019–2020, along with certain GST notifications extending limitation. The petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice but did not avail personal hearing. It contended that its reply was not properly considered and sought relief against the demand. The challenge to notifications was also part of a larger batch of cases pending before various High Courts and the Supreme Court.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. It observed that the petitioner had filed a reply which was considered, and therefore the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 31 January 2026 with pre-deposit, with a direction that such appeal shall not be rejected on limitation. The outcome was made subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP concerning validity of the notifications.Cases Referred:DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors. View Download
10	J.K. Enterprises v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1	12-12-2025	Challenge to GST show cause notice and adjudication order involving alleged fraudulent ITC and maintainability of writ petition	View Download
Facts :The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 7 August 2024 and order dated 30 January 2025 confirming tax demand for alleged fraudulent availment of ITC. The Department’s case involved investigation against multiple entities allegedly availing fake ITC through non-existent firms, with the petitioner being one of the recipients. The petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN nor attend personal hearing despite notices being sent via registered email. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court raising issues of jurisdiction, service, and validity of consolidated SCN.Court Decision:The Court dismissed the writ petition holding that no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. It held that personal hearing notices were duly served through registered email and the petitioner failed to participate in proceedings. The Court upheld that consolidated SCN for multiple financial years is permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, and that adjudication by a single authority in multi-notice cases is valid. It further held that issues raised required factual adjudication and the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 107. The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000, with liberty granted to file appeal by 15 January 2026 with pre-deposit.Cases Referred:Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTIAssistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel LimitedMukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of IndiaSheetal and Sons v. Union of IndiaMHJ Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi South
J.K. Enterprises v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1 12-12-2025 Challenge to GST show cause notice and adjudication order involving alleged fraudulent ITC and maintainability of writ petition Facts :The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 7 August 2024 and order dated 30 January 2025 confirming tax demand for alleged fraudulent availment of ITC. The Department’s case involved investigation against multiple entities allegedly availing fake ITC through non-existent firms, with the petitioner being one of the recipients. The petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN nor attend personal hearing despite notices being sent via registered email. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court raising issues of jurisdiction, service, and validity of consolidated SCN.Court Decision:The Court dismissed the writ petition holding that no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. It held that personal hearing notices were duly served through registered email and the petitioner failed to participate in proceedings. The Court upheld that consolidated SCN for multiple financial years is permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, and that adjudication by a single authority in multi-notice cases is valid. It further held that issues raised required factual adjudication and the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 107. The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000, with liberty granted to file appeal by 15 January 2026 with pre-deposit.Cases Referred:Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTIAssistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel LimitedMukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of IndiaSheetal and Sons v. Union of IndiaMHJ Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi South View Download

Total: 26 case laws