High Court of Madras3 June 2026

Kay Arr Engineering Services v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

For assesseeRemanded

W.P. NO. 5854 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

Where DGGI issued SCN and Assistant Commissioner adjudicated and passed OIO confirming proposals, since power to pass orders on DGGI notices was vested only in Additional or Joint Commissioner by Notification 02/2022-CT, OIO passed by Assistant Commissioner suffered procedural irregularity and same was to be was quashed; matter to be decided by competent authority as per prevailing notifications

Provisions considered

Section 3 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 5 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

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

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Where infrastructure company held registrations in multiple States administratively assigned to State authorities but was investigated by DGGI Kanpur for alleged cross-State invoice chains and issued a common SCN, such investigation and issuance by DGGI were valid as DGGI officers legally possess all-India powers irrespective of tax administrative allocation, hence jurisdictional objection was not to be sustained GST: Where petitioner challenged jurisdiction of Additional or Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi North to adjudicate common SCN citing later notifications, since prior notification and circular empowered Delhi North to adjudicate based on highest tax demand in SCN falling within Delhi, and revised allocation still mapped relevant noticee to Delhi North, jurisdictional objection to allocation was to be rejected

Delhi High Court12 Aug 2026

For revenue

Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India

Where taxpayer challenged administrative transfer of audit file from Audit Wing to Anti-Evasion Wing within same Commissionerate citing authority and audit timeline grounds, such transfer was administrative in nature, not barred by statute, and interference was unwarranted as petitioner could raise all related objections before Adjudicating Authority, especially since transfer followed repeated non- compliance by petitioner

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Kay Arr Engineering Services v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Kay Arr Engineering Services v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India

Read the full analysis