High Court of Calcutta17 August 2026

Umen Chandra Roy v. Union of India

For assesseeRemanded

WPA NO. 1360 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where assessee filed rectification application for ITC after prescribed cut-off as per departmental circulars but statute provided no time limit, executive circulars imposing six-month cap could not override substantive right under Section 16(5), and rejection for delay was unsustainable so rectification application was to be reconsidered on merits unless delay was found exceptional

Provisions considered

Section 39, read with Sections 16 and 168, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950

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

Tripura High Court27 Jul 2026

For assessee

Ashutosh Bandyopadhay v. Union of India

Where assessee reported invoices under incorrect GSTIN in GSTR-1 due to bona fide error, while taxes were duly paid and there was no loss of revenue, statutory provisions permitting rectification of inadvertent errors in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B were applicable despite portal constraints, authorities were accordingly directed to permit amendment or manual correction to remedy error

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Umen Chandra Roy v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Umen Chandra Roy v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

Ashutosh Bandyopadhay v. Union of India

Read the full analysis