High Court of Gujarat13 July 2026

Jai Ganesh Enterprise v. Union of India

For revenue

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9269 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where State GST officer intercepted consignment in transit, found no quantity discrepancy but initiated penalty proceedings alleging reuse of documents, State GST officers were competent to act as proper officers under IGST Act where State Commissioner’s order designated them under State GST law; no separate Central notification was required.

Orders passed by State GST proper officers while exercising IGST powers were appealable before the State appellate authority by virtue of cross-empowerment; as an efficacious statutory remedy existed against confiscation and penalty orders, invocation of writ jurisdiction without exhausting appeal was impermissible

Provisions considered

Section 4, read with Section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 129, read with Section 107, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat 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

GSTAT Bengaluru28 Sept 2026

For assessee

JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. v. State GST Karnataka

Where consignor's goods were detained solely for e-way bill expiry due to a software error misreading destination, though all documents including correct invoices and lorry receipt were available, tax was charged and physical verification revealed no discrepancies or intent to evade, invoking detention and penalty under section 129 for this procedural lapse was invalid and demands were unsustainable

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

GSTAT Bengaluru28 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jai Ganesh Enterprise v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Jai Ganesh Enterprise v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. v. State GST Karnataka

Read the full analysis