Kay Arr Engineering Services v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
Kay Arr Engineering Services approached the High Court of Madras (W.P. No. 5854 of 2025, decided 3 June 2026) after the Directorate General of GST Intelligence issued a show cause notice and an Assistant Commissioner adjudicated and passed an order in original confirming the revenue's proposals. The issue was whether the Assistant Commissioner had authority to pass final orders on notices issued by DGGI. Under Notification No. 02/2022-CT, only an Additional or Joint Commissioner was vested with power to adjudicate such matters. The court held that adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner was a procedural irregularity affecting jurisdiction. The impugned order in original was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh decision by the competent authority in accordance with the notifications prevailing at the relevant time. The outcome favoured the assessee. This is a case-law summary for professional reference, not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- IGST S.3 — IGST S.3 as considered in the ruling.
- CGST S.5 — Levy and collection of CGST on intra-State supplies.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax
Krishna Industries filed a writ before the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 4897 of 2025, 18 September 2026) challenging central GST action while state authorities were proceeding under Section 73. The assessee had claimed input tax credit on invoices from a supplier; state and central authorities invoked different provisions—Section 73 at the state level and Section 74 at the central level—based on distinct intelligence regarding alleged bogus transactions. The assessee argued that Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act barred parallel proceedings. The court held that commonality of assessee, period, or ITC amount was insufficient to treat the actions as overlapping when the assessee held different GSTINs and the subject matter and investigative material differed. Central proceedings were not impermissible. The writ was dismissed in favour of the revenue.
In favour of the revenue
Mohammed Kamran v. Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence
Mohammed Kamran, a scrap trader, challenged parallel GST investigations before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 38771 of 2025, decided 7 July 2026). State GST had initiated an inquiry into discrepancies in his transactions; during its pendency the Directorate General of GST Intelligence commenced a wider investigation into related supply chains, and the state inquiry was formally transferred to the central authority. The petitioner invoked Section 6 of the CGST Act to argue that dual proceedings were barred. The court examined Sections 6, 69, 132, and 168 and found no identical liability or overlapping adjudication on the same cause of action. The designated central authority was competent to proceed on its own investigative material. Parallel investigation was held permissible. The writ was dismissed in favour of the revenue. This summary is for professional reference on officer jurisdiction, not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India
RPP Infra Projects Ltd. challenged DGGI Kanpur's investigation before the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) Nos. 10852, 10853, 10861 of 2025, decided 16 September 2026). The infrastructure company held GST registrations in multiple States, administratively assigned to respective state commissionerates, but DGGI issued a common show cause notice alleging cross-State invoice chains and bogus credits. The assessee objected that only state-assigned officers could act on its registrations. The court reasoned under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 168 of the CGST Act that officers of the Directorate General possess all-India powers irrespective of tax administrative allocation. Investigation and notice by DGGI were valid. The jurisdictional challenge failed and the writ was dismissed in favour of the Union of India. Multi-state registrants cannot limit DGGI inquiry by administrative assignment alone.
In favour of the revenue
Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India
Siemens Healthcare (P) Ltd. approached the High Court of Delhi (W.P. (C) No. 16562 of 2024, decided 12 August 2026) to restrain transfer of its audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing within the same commissionerate. The taxpayer cited lack of statutory authority and disruption of audit timelines under Section 65 of the CGST Act. The court treated the transfer as an internal administrative reallocation, not barred by statute, particularly where it followed repeated non-compliance by the petitioner in responding to audit requisitions. Judicial interference at the writ stage was unwarranted; the petitioner could raise jurisdictional and procedural objections before the adjudicating authority in the consequential proceedings. The petition was dismissed in favour of the revenue. Section 5 empowers reallocation of work among officers without invalidating subsequent enforcement.
In favour of the assessee
Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Union of India
Singapore Airlines Ltd. approached the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2702 of 2026, decided on 29 June 2026, to challenge IGST demands framed on Computer Reservation System (CRS) services. The revenue treated the airline as the recipient liable under the CGST Act, including proceedings under section 74. The airline contended it neither received the services in question nor paid consideration, so the prior issue was whether it was a "recipient" at all—a question going to jurisdiction rather than mere tax quantification. The Court held the writ petition maintainable despite availability of a statutory appeal, because the dispute touched the competence of the adjudicating authority and warranted deeper examination of sections 5 and 6 read with section 74. The outcome at this stage favoured the assessee on maintainability, leaving substantive liability to be determined in appropriate proceedings. This editorial summary is for professional awareness among chartered accountants and is not legal advice.