High Court of Gujarat7 July 2026

Mahesh Enterprises v. State of Gujarat

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7422 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where without furnishing mandatory undertaking or pre-deposit for stay as required by Circular 224/18/2024-GST and relevant notifications, assessee filed GSTAT appeal seven months after Order-in-Appeal was passed, refund claim for tax recovered from assessee was untenable

Provisions considered

Section 112, read with sections 168 and 172 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.

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

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

GSTAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2026

For revenue

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate

Where appellant, as Managing Director, faced personal penalty of Rs 25,000 each under section 122(3) for two company units and total amount determined against appellant did not exceed Rs 50,000, Tribunal exercised statutory discretion to refuse admission as threshold requirement was not met, resulting in dismissal of appeal

CGST S.112

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

CGST S.112

Mahesh Enterprises v. State of Gujarat

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Mahesh Enterprises v. State of Gujarat

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate