High Court of Delhi18 September 2026

Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax

For revenue

W.P.(C) NO. 4897 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

Where assessee registered under CGST and SGST claimed ITC on invoices from a supplier and State invoked Section 73 while Central authorities invoked Section 74, Central action based on distinct intelligence regarding bogus transactions was not barred by Section 6(2)(b) as two proceedings concerned different subject matter based on distinct investigative material; commonality of assessee and period or ITC amount was insufficient when assessee had different GSTINs

Provisions considered

Sections 6, read with sections 73 and 74, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi 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

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 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 Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Vertilink Media Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Anti Evasion Branch

Where DGGI initiated proceedings for ITC fraud against multiple noticees including petitioner while a separate proceeding was initiated by State GST officer against petitioner for denial of ITC due to non-payment of tax by supplier, bar on parallel proceedings did not apply as proceedings addressed distinct subject matters; mere commonality in petitioner, period, or transactions was insufficient to constitute identity of subject matter. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, subsequent conclusion of DGGI proceedings did not extinguish independent demand raised by State GST officer on separate statutory grounds; absence of recovery in DGGI proceedings did not retrospectively invalidate separate proceedings concerning short payment and ITC ineligibility. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, where petitioner was only a co-noticee in DGGI proceedings and no penalty, tax, or interest was imposed on petitioner in that matter, proceedings by State GST officer for ame act would not attract bar against penalty, as protection applies only if prior penalty on petitioner for same act is established and shown

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

Vertilink Media Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Anti Evasion Branch

Read the full analysis