High Court of Delhi13 August 2026

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

For revenue

The ruling in brief

Where directors and managing directors were subjected to penalty under section 122(1) for alleged fraudulent availment and utilization of ITC by their companies, and applicability of section 122(1) to a person who was not a taxable person was pending consideration before Supreme Court, writ petition was not to be entertained as statutory appeal under section 107 was available, thus, petitioners were relegated to appellate remedy

Provisions considered

Section 122, read with section 107, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Delhi 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

Supreme Court18 Aug 2026

For revenue

Marginmart Infosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner CGST

Where penalty proceedings for issuance of invoices without actual supply and wrongful ITC were initiated after an investigation found recipient non-existent, and statutory appeal under section 107 was available to challenge both jurisdiction and procedural grounds, writ petition under Article 226 was not entertained, and assessee was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, leaving all questions open for consideration by Appellate Authority; instant Court found no error in impugned order passed by High Court, SLP was to be disposed of

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

Supreme Court18 Aug 2026

For revenue

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

Marginmart Infosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner CGST

Read the full analysis