High Court of Meghalaya4 August 2026

City Lights and Equipments v. State of Meghalaya

For revenue

WP(C) NO. 264 OF 2024

The ruling in brief

Where a firm challenged demand and assessment alleging bias and natural justice violation due to seizure-based assessment and involvement of same officer in inspection and appeal, with issues on proper officer jurisdiction, reliance on seized estimates, residuary rate, and reconciliation, statutory appellate remedy under GSTAT existed, no actual bias or illegality was shown, thus, writ petitioner was to be dismissed as disputed facts were fit for GSTAT consideration

Provisions considered

Section 112, read with section 107, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 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

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position

Rajasthan High Court20 Aug 2026

For assessee

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

Where petitioner’s statutory appeal delay was due to non-communication by CA not attributable to petitioner, and refusal to consider appeal on merits would cause serious prejudice, delay in filing was condoned and Appellate Authority was directed to hear appeal on merits

CGST S.107

GSTAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2026

For revenue

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate

Where appellant, as Managing Director, faced personal penalty of Rs 25,000 each under section 122(3) for two company units and total amount determined against appellant did not exceed Rs 50,000, Tribunal exercised statutory discretion to refuse admission as threshold requirement was not met, resulting in dismissal of appeal

CGST S.112

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

Rajasthan High Court20 Aug 2026

For assessee

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

CGST S.107

GSTAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2026

For revenue

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate

CGST S.112

City Lights and Equipments v. State of Meghalaya

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

City Lights and Equipments v. State of Meghalaya

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate

Read the full analysis