Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
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.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.5 — Levy and collection of CGST on intra-State supplies.
- CGST S.65 — Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Source documents
Similar rulings
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
Nehkhohao Haokip v. Union of India
Nehkhohao Haokip and others petitioned the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 3871 of 2026, 27 July 2026) against repatriation from In-Charge Transfer (ICT) postings in the CBIC. The petitioners had been promoted as Executive Assistants and transferred on ICT after the 2015 Recruitment Rules, which provided separate cadres and no provision for absorption. CBIC policy restricted ICT except in limited cases. The issue was whether orders treating ICT as loan postings and directing repatriation were valid. The court upheld the department's position that ICT postings were impermissible under the rules and policy framework. No infirmity was found in the repatriation orders. The writ was dismissed in favour of the Union of India. This summary is for CA reference on service matters touching GST administration, not legal advice.
See the decision
State Tax Officer v. Besto Tradelink Ltd
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1451 of 2024, 30 June 2026), rejected the State Tax Department’s attempt to rank as a secured creditor for GST dues in CIRP against Besto Tradelink Ltd. Section 82 CGST creates a statutory charge but does not override the insolvency priority under the IBC. The department had not objected during the resolution process, and the approved resolution plan had been fully implemented. Challenging unsecured treatment thereafter lacked merit. Outcome turned on insolvency law interaction with GST recovery. Tax authorities in CIRP should assert claims timely; statutory charge alone does not equate to secured status in liquidation or resolution. 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
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.
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.