High Court of Uttarakhand9 September 2026

Nand Kishore Garg v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST

For assesseeRemanded

WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 704 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where assessee filed rectification application within time under Section 161 read with Notification 22/2024-CT, treating three-month timeline for disposal as mandatory was incorrect since such period is directory, hence expiry does not render authority functus officio and rejection as time-barred despite timely application was unsustainable and matter is to be decided on merits

Provisions considered

CGST S.161

Section 161 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttarakhand 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

Allahabad High Court13 Aug 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Wonder Enterprises v. State of U.P

Where Adjudicating Authority, after passing ex parte order without considering assessee's replies, issued a rectification order without notice and sustained demand, such rectification was impermissible since it was not for an error apparent but involved merit review, denial of hearing vitiated proceedings, thus only permissible course was recall of earlier order and fresh decision after hearing

Supreme Court18 Sept 2026

For revenue

Manpar Icon Technologies v. Assistant Commissioner CGST Division

SLP was filed against order of High Court holding that where assessee assailed demand order and corrigendum to SCN including additional period in writ alleging illegality, since such issues involved factual examination of corrections under sections 160 and 161 and were already considered by adjudicating authority, in view of available alternate remedy of appeal, writ was not maintainable and petition was to be dismissed with liberty to avail appellate remedy; SC declined to interfere with HC order dismissing writ for alternative remedy and extended limitation, SLP was to be disposed of

Gujarat High Court13 Aug 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Kanan International (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Where refund was rejected, rectification sought within statutory period was disposed by a reasoned order, and appeal was filed against both rejection and rectification, limitation for appeal must be computed from rectification order and not from earlier rejection, thus, appellate authority erred in treating appeal as time- barred based on original order and matter was liable for decision on merits

Nand Kishore Garg v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Nand Kishore Garg v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Wonder Enterprises v. State of U.P

Manpar Icon Technologies v. Assistant Commissioner CGST Division

Kanan International (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Read the full analysis