Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises v. State Bank of India
See the decision
The ruling in brief
Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court (WPC 4234/2026, 14 August 2026) against State Bank of India after its meal-supply tender bid was rejected despite quoting identical rates to another bidder, amid GST ambiguity on the contract. CGST Section 9 and Articles 226 and 14 were invoked. Post-bid offers and delay or unpaid-dues allegations did not establish illegality, arbitrariness or breach of tender terms. Judicial review under Article 226 ensures fair process, not merits revision or contract re-writing. The writ was dismissed on limited constitutional review grounds without examining whether GST inclusion affected rate comparability. Outcome: no relief on tender merits. GST practitioners advising on government tenders should separate tax clarification disputes from Article 226 challenges unless procedural unfairness is clearly shown.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.9 — Levy of CGST; includes reverse-charge liability in notified cases.
- Constitution Art.226 — High Court writ jurisdiction for enforcement of rights and other purposes.
- Constitution Art.14 — Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Source documents
Similar rulings
See the decision
Executive Engineer v. M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects (P.) Ltd
The Executive Engineer filed a writ appeal before the Karnataka High Court (WA 1947/2025, 29 July 2026) concerning withholding of differential GST on municipal works executed under the earlier VAT and service tax regime. Sections 142 and 9 CGST and Article 226 were raised. M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects had invoked arbitration under the contract, covering the reimbursement claim for transition tax. The Division Bench held the writ under Article 226 not maintainable where an arbitration clause exists and arbitral proceedings are pending, without adjudicating reimbursement merits on the writ side. Outcome: procedural dismissal of writ route. Contractors must pursue contractual arbitration rather than parallel writs when arbitration already covers GST differential claims, though Er. Roland S. remains relevant where no arbitration bar exists.
In favour of the revenue
Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd. v. Union of India
Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd., a BOT annuity road concessionaire, challenged GST demand on post-COD annuity before the Meghalaya High Court (WP(C) No. 245 of 2024, 2 June 2026), raising classification, exemption, composite supply, and constitutional issues under Sections 3, 5, 9, 74 and 107 CGST. Thangkhiew and Bhattacharjee JJ found mixed questions of fact and law requiring adjudication, with no grave jurisdictional or natural justice breach, and declined Article 226 in favour of statutory appeal. Outcome favoured revenue on maintainability. Large infrastructure concessions should pursue Section 107/GSTAT for annuity tax characterisation. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
In favour of the revenue
Jaiwanti v. Union of India
Jaiwanti, as legal representative, challenged show cause and penalty proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund claims of a deceased person. The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 7254 of 2025, 25 September 2026) upheld the department’s action under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which permits post-death determination of tax, interest, and penalty to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Investigation and recovery against legal heirs were jurisdictionally valid; Article 14 and related provisions did not assist the petitioner. Outcome favoured the revenue. This contrasts with cases where notices are issued only in the deceased’s name without proper representation procedure. For estate planning and GST compliance, Section 93 mechanics are central. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-25, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P.(C) NO.7254 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.93, CGST S.73, CGST S.74. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union Srinagar Dood Ganga v. Union Territory of J And K
Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union Srinagar Dood Ganga filed WP(C) No. 1016 of 2023 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; order 18 September 2026. The union operated taxi stands on public land under temporary allotment and paid rent to the administration. Respondents demanded GST on rental periods including years before GST came into force on 8 July 2017. The court held tax could not be levied retrospectively for pre-implementation rent; liability attached only from 8 July 2017 onward under Sections 1 and 9 read with transitional Section 174. Outcome: in favour of the assessee for the pre-GST period. Relevant for government lease and land-allotment cases. Editorial summary; not legal advice. Dues for post-July 2017 rent remain payable with GST where applicable, separating valid current liability from invalid back demands.
In favour of the revenue
Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India
Jain Cement Udyog filed W.P.(C) No. 13622 of 2026 before the Delhi High Court, decided 17 September 2026, concerning input tax credit denied where supplier registrations were cancelled before invoice dates and suppliers had not paid tax. The assessee also challenged constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), relying on Rule 37A verification norms. The Court noted the Supreme Court upheld section 16(2)(c), requiring recipients to establish supplier tax deposit, and rejected the constitutional challenge. On maintainability, writ jurisdiction was declined and the assessee was relegated to statutory appeal to contest fact-specific eligibility. Outcome favoured the revenue on validity and procedure. Chartered accountants should strengthen pre-availment supplier due diligence and maintain contemporaneous audit trails for invoices. Not legal advice.