Rajnish Kumar v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Rajnish Kumar filed a writ before the Patna High Court (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1338 of 2026, 16 July 2026) against adjudication and recovery orders under Sections 78 and 107 CGST. Prasad and Mishra JJ permitted withdrawal with liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, excluding writ period from limitation and allowing condonation, while barring re-agitation of one previously adjudicated contention; other grounds remained open. Outcome favoured the assessee on remedial routing. Partial issue preclusion may apply when writ converts to appeal after earlier partial adjudication. 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.78 — Section 78 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Sepl Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)
Sepl Infra (P.) Ltd. challenged before the Karnataka High Court (WP 104931 of 2026, 9 July 2026) the dismissal of its appeal under Section 107 after it belatedly discovered an adjudication order that had not been uploaded in the regular GST portal tab and was not fully served. The assessee had meanwhile complied with the statutory pre-deposit under Sections 78 and 79. The court found that delayed knowledge coupled with deficient portal communication and incomplete service justified writ relief despite limitation arguments. The appellate dismissal was set aside, delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) for a merit-based decision in accordance with Section 107.
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.
In favour of the assessee
Aakash Gupta v. Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal
Multiple writ petitioners including Aakash Gupta approached the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) Nos. 12808 et seq., 14 September 2026) because GSTAT insisted on pre-deposit for appeals arising from penalty-only show cause notices issued before the amended pre-deposit requirement. Sections 107 and 112 CGST govern first and second appeals; the right of appeal vests when the SCN is issued. The Court held the new pre-deposit condition could not apply retrospectively to penalty-only cases from pre-amendment SCNs, and directed GSTAT to entertain those appeals without pre-deposit. Outcome favoured assessees. Penalty appeals tied to older SCNs should be filed under the law as it stood when the notice was issued. 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
VA Tech Wabag Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Salt Lake
In W.P.A. No. 14369 of 2024 (Calcutta High Court, 11 September 2026, Smita Das De, J.), VA Tech Wabag Ltd. challenged dismissal of its appeal against an adjudication order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Salt Lake circle, under the CGST Act. The appeal was delayed because the business manager handling GST filings was incapacitated by serious illness; mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 had nonetheless been remitted. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely for lateness without engaging with the illness explanation. The court held such approach hyper-technical where statutory pre-deposit signified bona fide intent to pursue remedies. Sufficient cause for condonation was found; the appeal was restored for merit-based adjudication. The decision mirrors sibling batch matters and reinforces that appellate authorities must apply condonation principles rather than formulaic dismissal. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Editorial summary for Chartered Universe readers; not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
VA Tech Wabag Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue
VA Tech Wabag Ltd. approached the Calcutta High Court (WPA Nos. 14367, 14368, 14369, 14371 and 14372 of 2024, 10 September 2026; Smita Das De, J.) after the Appellate Authority rejected multiple appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act on limitation grounds. The company had paid mandatory pre-deposit but filed appeals late because the employee entrusted with GST compliance suffered serious illness, documented through medical certificates. The appellate forum declined condonation and did not examine whether sufficient cause existed. The court observed that mechanical rejection despite pre-deposit and credible medical explanation was hyper-technical and inconsistent with justice-oriented limitation jurisprudence. Delay reckoned from communication of the underlying adjudication orders was ordered condoned, appeals directed to be registered and heard on merits within the Section 107 framework. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Practitioners should note that illness of responsible personnel may constitute sufficient cause where properly evidenced. Not legal advice.