Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
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.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.6 — Authorisation of officers and concurrent State tax jurisdiction.
- CGST S.73 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid (non-fraud cases).
- CGST S.74 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid involving fraud or suppression.
Source documents
Similar rulings
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
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
Sri Nur Alom v. Union of India
Sri Nur Alom challenged before the Gauhati High Court (11 September 2026, WP (C) No. 4971 of 2026) cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and dismissal of his restoration appeal as time-barred, leaving him without a registration needed for ongoing trade. The petitioner undertook to file all pending returns and pay tax, interest and penalty if cancellation were set aside. Writ relief set aside cancellation on condition of filing pending returns within thirty days with requisite payments; limitation under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) was directed to run from the present order except where Section 44 governed annual return timelines. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Shows writ courts granting compliance-based restoration when appellate forums reject on delay alone. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
SRD Groups v. State of Assam
SRD Groups succeeded in the Gauhati High Court (7 September 2026, WP(C) No. 4818 of 2026) where GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to the departmental notice, leaving the petitioner unable to carry on lawful business. The writ sought restoration on undertaking to regularize returns. The Court allowed restoration subject to filing all pending returns within thirty days and confirmed continued liability for tax, interest, penalty and late fee under Sections 29, 30, 39, 44, 73 and 74, aligning limitation for demand with the date of the court order where applicable. Outcome: in favour of the assessee on compliance terms. Typical Gauhati restoration template after return-default cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). Editorial summary only; not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Supra Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner
Supra Enterprises, a GST-registered partnership, filed W.P.(C) No. 11352 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court; the matter was decided on 31 August 2026 against a demand following a show cause notice alleging suppression and wrongful availment of input tax credit. The department contended that full opportunity to reply and be heard was provided, and that remaining disputes concerned appraisal of records and merits under sections 73, 74, 65, and 75 of the CGST Act. The Court agreed that where replies were on record and issues are essentially factual or evidentiary, Article 226 is not a substitute for appellate scrutiny under the GST statute. The writ petition was held not maintainable and the assessee was relegated to the statutory appeal forum. The decision favoured the revenue on jurisdiction. This editorial note is not legal advice.