High Court of Chhattisgarh14 August 2026

Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises v. State Bank of India

WPC NO. 4234 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner and respondent No.2 quoted identical rates for meal supply tender and petitioner's bid was rejected amid GST ambiguity, subsequent post-bid offer and allegations of delay or unpaid dues did not establish illegality, arbitrariness, or breach of tender terms, as judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring fairness and process, not to revisiting merits or contract disputes

Provisions considered

Section 9 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Article 226, read with Article 14, of Constitution of India, 1950

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Supreme Court13 Jul 2026

For revenue

Fanmade11 Fantasy Sports (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Where writ petition challenging SCN was rendered unnecessary in view of Supreme Court's decision in Gameskraft Technologies, assessee was relegated to appear before Assessing Officer and avail statutory appeal against any adverse assessment order GST : Where final assessment order was passed despite interim protection against coercive action, since statutory remedy of appeal had become available, assessee was relegated to appellate authority with liberty to raise all contentions including revaluation and pre-deposit

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax

Where appellant, a lender of housing loans, faced demand for GST on loan recoveries but invoked exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CTR Entry 27 for first time before Tribunal, exemption applied as pure legal plea could be raised at any stage and recovery of loan amounts qualified as exempt service under Entry 27 GST: Where a housing loan lender claimed that receipts treated as taxable supply were actually recoveries of principal from written-off housing loan accounts and supported this with bank records showing deposits and SARFAESI charges, failure by revenue to consider admissible certified evidence warranted remand for production and consideration of such documents for just determination of exemption claim

Related rulings

Supreme Court13 Jul 2026

For revenue

Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises v. State Bank of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises v. State Bank of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Fanmade11 Fantasy Sports (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax

Read the full analysis