Friends Alloys v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
Friends Alloys filed a writ before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (CWP No. 4997 of 2025, 8 July 2026) challenging an order-in-original and DRC-07 summary instead of filing under Section 107 CGST. Thakur and Sharma JJ held writ was inappropriate where statutory appeal existed under Sections 74 and 107, permitted withdrawal with liberty to appeal within thirty days excluding time spent in writ. Outcome favoured the assessee in obtaining appeal window, not merits. Taxpayers should prefer Section 107; courts may exclude writ period from limitation when redirecting to appellate remedy. 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.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.107 — Appeals to the Appellate Authority.
- CGST S.74 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid involving fraud or suppression.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
Gaurav Jain v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone
Gaurav Jain petitioned the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 8414 of 2026, 31 July 2026) after appellate authorities demanded 10% pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals linked to Section 122(1A) SCNs issued before the substituted proviso to Section 107(6) CGST and Rule 108. The Court held the appeal right vested at SCN issuance and pre-amended law governed, so the 10% pre-deposit requirement did not apply to those penalty appeals. Outcome favoured the assessee. Aligns with Delhi jurisprudence on non-retroactive pre-deposit for legacy penalty notices. 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
Sodexo India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
Sodexo India Services (P.) Ltd. filed a writ before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 9153 of 2026, decided 15 July 2026) assailing an order-in-original passed under Sections 74 and 75 of the CGST Act after a detailed departmental audit. The assessee had participated throughout, filed comprehensive replies, and supplied documents, yet complained that the adjudicating authority neither meaningfully considered its submissions nor called for additional records before confirming demand. The revenue contended that adequate opportunity was afforded and that grievances went to appreciation of evidence, not procedural fairness. Invoking Article 226, the Division Bench (Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain, JJ.) reaffirmed that where statutory appeal under Section 107 exists, writ courts normally refrain from adjudicating merits unless exceptional circumstances—such as clear jurisdictional void or gross violation of natural justice—are shown. Mere disagreement with outcome or depth of reasoning does not qualify. The writ was dismissed, leaving the assessee to pursue appeal with pre-deposit. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. This summary is informational for chartered accountants and not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Mahalaxmi Industries v. Union of India
Mahalaxmi Industries petitioned the Gujarat High Court (Special Civil Application No. 9118 of 2026, 10 July 2026) against a fake ITC demand order sharing the same SCN and modus operandi as a connected entity at the same address. Supehia and Nanavati JJ held an effective remedy under Sections 74 and 107 CGST existed and writ under Article 226 was not maintainable. The writ was rejected in favour of appellate process. Outcome favoured revenue on forum. Connected-party cases still require statutory appeals unless exceptional jurisdictional defects are shown. 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
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 assessee
H.K. Impex v. Commissioner of DGST
H.K. Impex filed W.P.(C) No. 13924 of 2026 before the Delhi High Court (21 September 2026) when its appeal was rejected as time-barred based on upload of the demand order on the GST Common Portal alone. Under Sections 107 and 169 CGST, mere portal upload without separate service or acknowledgement does not start the appeal limitation clock. The Court allowed filing within four weeks. Outcome favoured the assessee. Taxpayers should document how orders were received; departments should follow formal service norms to fix limitation. 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.