Debojit Deb v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Debojit Deb (Gauhati High Court, WP(C) 1653 of 2026, 12 June 2026, Kardak Ete, J.) executed government works contracts claiming service tax exemption under applicable notification while department raised demand referencing only Income-tax Form 26AS entries without independent verification or recording prerequisites for extended limitation under Finance Act 1994 Sections 73, 75, 77 and 78. Transition to GST via Section 142 did not cure jurisdictional defect in adjudication approach. Demand lacked substantiation beyond third-party tax deduction data. Court set aside order as unauthorized assumption of jurisdiction. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Pre-GST service tax disputes illustrate limits of 26AS-only adjudication. Editorial summary for Chartered Universe; not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- Finance Act 1994 S.73 — Finance Act 1994 S.73 as considered in the ruling.
- Finance Act 1994 S.75 — Finance Act 1994 S.75 as considered in the ruling.
- Finance Act 1994 S.77 — Finance Act 1994 S.77 as considered in the ruling.
- Finance Act 1994 S.78 — Finance Act 1994 S.78 as considered in the ruling.
- CGST S.142 — Miscellaneous transitional provisions.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 10213 of 2025, judgment dated 29 September 2026) declined to interfere at the show-cause stage in proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Rules 101 and 142. Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd., a medicine distributor, challenged a show cause notice and the appropriation of amounts deposited during audit, alleging coercion, limitation errors, incorrect computation, and lack of jurisdiction. The bench held that statutory adjudication had already commenced and the notice had not finally determined tax liability. Objections—including whether payment was voluntary—were matters for the adjudicating authority after reply and hearing. Premature writ relief was unwarranted. The outcome favoured the revenue; the assessee was left to pursue its defences in the pending adjudication.
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; matter remanded
Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal
Arup Datta (Calcutta High Court, WPA 17892 of 2026, 24 September 2026, Sumita Das De, J.) challenged demand of tax, interest and penalty under Sections 73 and 75 where show cause notice and ex parte adjudication order were uploaded on GST portal without direct intimation. Petitioner filed reply yet received no personal hearing before order-in-original, violating audi alteram partem embedded in Section 75(4) scheme and fair service expectations under Section 169 context. Court quashed impugned adjudication and directed reconsideration after effective hearing with communicated schedule. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. West Bengal portal-service cases increasingly scrutinize ‘additional notices’ tabs and silent ex parte orders. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST
Rohit Vij (W.P.(C) No. 13848 of 2021) obtained setting aside and remand from the High Court of Delhi on 22 September 2026. An adverse Form DRC-07 was passed without personal hearing despite Section 75 and Rule 142 requiring hearing on request or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated. The order was unsustainable. The adjudicating authority must pass a fresh decision after effective personal hearing. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Delhi benches consistently police hearing compliance in DRC proceedings. Registered persons should formally request hearings and preserve proof when SCN signals confirmation of demand. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-22, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in W.P.(C) NO. 13848 OF 2021. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, CGST Rules R.142. 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
Saptagiri Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Saptagiri Constructions, supplying works contract services to government departments, faced a single composite summary assessment for multiple years. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 26644 of 2026, 21 September 2026) under Section 75 set aside the order as impermissible clubbing and allowed fresh year-wise proceedings with consequential relief revoked. Outcome favoured the assessee. Mirrors sibling Andhra Pradesh judgments on composite orders in works-contract GST assessments. Government vendors should expect separate SCNs if department reopens past periods. Period-specific limitation and hearing apply to each re-initiated year. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-21, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 26644 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75. 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.