High Court of Bombay5 August 2026

Mahapuja Ltd. v. Office of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai Central

For revenue

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15871 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where assessee challenged order-in-original citing non-supply of relied-upon documents despite records showing proper service via registered and alternate emails, and no specific missing document or resultant prejudice was pleaded, with statutory appeal remedy available and no exceptional circumstances shown, writ under Article 226 was not maintainable and only statutory appellate route could be pursued

Provisions considered

Section 107, read with section 75 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Maharashtra 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

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 Raipur28 Sept 2026

For assessee

Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax

Where scrutiny of e-way bills and subsequent proceedings led to disputed liability for two invoices, and Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief for one invoice (GST-1399) and sustained demand for another (GST-125), with respondent not challenging relief on GST-1399 before Tribunal, only GST-125 remained in controversy, leaving relief on GST-1399 undisturbed and outside Tribunal’s purview. GST: Where assessee, accused of duplicate e-way bill generation and non-payment, specifically requested a personal hearing and submitted defence, adjudicating authority confirmed demand without granting post-reply hearing or giving reasoned decision, such order violated statutory mandate for opportunity of hearing and duty to record reasons, hence original adjudication was vitiated for non-compliance with legal requirements. GST: Where dispute survived for single invoice with two e-way bills for same vehicle, non-cancellation was admitted and no primary records or evidence were produced to prove asserted system glitch, appellate proceedings could not cure breach of statutory personal hearing at original stage, warranting limited remand for fresh determination after affording statutory hearing and considering primary evidence. GST: Where demand was confirmed on duplicate e-way bills against same invoice with unpaid tax alleged, and cancellation of the second e-way bill was raised in appeal, reference by appellate authority to statutory cancellation mechanism did not introduce a new ground, since existence and non-use of cancellation window was relevant to assess appellant's defence of unintentional duplication.…

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 Raipur28 Sept 2026

For assessee

Mahapuja Ltd. v. Office of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai Central

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Mahapuja Ltd. v. Office of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai Central

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

Manoj Iron and Steel Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax