High Court of Patna
Rajnish Kumar v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
For assessee
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.1338 OF 2026
High Court of Patna
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.1338 OF 2026
Where petitioner challenged adjudication and recovery orders by writ, withdrawal was permitted with liberty to file statutory appeal before Appellate Authority, excluding period spent in writ from limitation computation and allowing condonation, but re-agitation of previously adjudicated contention was not permitted, while all other contentions remained open for appeal consideration.
Where petitioner sought refund of tax recovered during statutory appeal period but filed writ after three months and only within the condonable one-month period, writ registration after defect removal did not cure limitation default, and refund was denied as petitioner failed to approach authority within statutory appeal window prescribed for remedy
Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 78, read with section 107, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Bihar 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.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Delhi High Court
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 Court
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
GSTAT Raipur
Where appellants challenged ex parte orders based on allegedly seized evidence and appellate authority dismissed appeals through identical, non-reasoned orders without dealing with seven distinct grounds or cited authorities, such non- speaking orders failed to exercise appellate jurisdiction and breached principles of natural justice, thus, considering foundational infirmities and ensuring fair opportunity, matter was to be remanded to original adjudicating authorities