High Court of Andhra Pradesh8 July 2026

Phoenix Medical Syatems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

For assessee

WRIT PETITION NO. 22371 OF 2024

The ruling in brief

Where assessee’s reply to Section 74 SCN was not considered and mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) was not granted, same vitiated DRC-07 assessment; as hearing was required where adverse decision was contemplated, order and consequential proceedings were unsustainable and were to be quashed.

Violation of natural justice and failure to grant mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) rendered assessment under Section 74 legally unsustainable; consequently, endorsement rejecting statutory appeal as time-barred could not survive, and assessment with all consequential proceedings was to be set aside

Provisions considered

Section 74, read with section 75, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 107, read with section 74, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

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

Delhi High Court29 Sept 2026

For revenue

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

Where petitioner distributor of medicines challenged show cause notice and appropriation of amount deposited during audit on grounds of coercion, limitation, computation, and jurisdiction, since statutory adjudication had commenced and SCN did not finally determine liability, all objections including voluntariness of payment and other contentions could be raised before Adjudicating Authority and interference at SCN stage was unwarranted

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

Delhi High Court29 Sept 2026

For revenue

Phoenix Medical Syatems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Phoenix Medical Syatems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner