Supreme Court of India18 August 2026

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

For revenue

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 26494 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

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

Provisions considered

Section 122, read with section 126, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi 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

GSTAT Lucknow19 Aug 2026

For assessee

Lucknow Automotives v. Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad)

Where registered dealer transporting motorcycles was intercepted for absence of e-way bill which was generated and produced nine minutes later, and goods were identifiable with genuine records without any evidence of suppression, undervaluation or intent to evade, mere procedural lapse did not justify penalty and orders for penalty and detention were unsustainable in law

Delhi High Court13 Aug 2026

For revenue

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

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

Allahabad High Court10 Aug 2026

For revenue

Nageen Traders and Molding India (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P

Where petitioner challenged penalty above Rs. 1 crore under section 122(1) imposed by Deputy Commissioner after participating on merits, State circulars provided Deputy Commissioner authority for amounts above Rs. 2.5 crores and proper officer jurisdiction, thus, as authority was competent and petitioner had elected to contest on merits, writ petition was not to be entertained and statutory appeal remedy was to be directed

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

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

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

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Lucknow Automotives v. Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad)

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

Nageen Traders and Molding India (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P