CGST Archives - Tax Heal

Supreme Court Permits GSTAT Appeal Without Pre-Deposit Pending Special Leave Petition Determination

Ashwani Kumar — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:31:49 +0000

Supreme Court Permits GSTAT Appeal Without Pre-Deposit Pending Special Leave Petition Determination

Issue

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to bypass the alternative statutory remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, and whether an appellate tribunal can be directed to entertain an appeal without pre-deposit during the pendency of a Special Leave Petition.

Facts

The assessee, a GST-registered construction contractor, was investigated for alleged irregular input tax credit, culminating in a penalty imposed via an Order-in-Original.
An appeal filed before the first appellate authority was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The assessee approached the High Court via a writ petition, challenging the adjudicating officer’s jurisdiction and alleging a breach of principles of natural justice.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that an efficacious statutory remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112 was available, and writ jurisdiction could not be invoked merely to bypass pre-deposit requirements or alternative remedies.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the assessee filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

Decision

The Supreme Court entertained the matter and issued formal notice in the Special Leave Petition.
The assessee was explicitly granted permission to file an appeal before the GSTAT.
The GSTAT was directed to entertain and process the appeal without insisting on the mandatory statutory pre-deposit.
The interim protection allowing the appeal without pre-deposit was made expressly subject to the final outcome of the pending SLP.

Keyakeaways

Enforceability of Alternative Remedies: High Courts consistently decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when a statutory appellate forum like the GSTAT is available under Section 112, barring litigants from bypassing pre-deposit mandates.
Supreme Court’s Interim Relief Powers: The Apex Court can invoke its discretionary powers to shield taxpayers from rigid pre-deposit conditions by allowing tribunal filings to proceed subject to the outcome of ongoing litigation.
Balancing Compliance and Justice: Permitting statutory appeals without pre-deposit during a pending SLP ensures that access to justice is not foreclosed by financial preconditions while complex legal questions remain sub judice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PVCON Engineering Co.

CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal

K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli, JJ.

SLP to Appeal (C) No(s). 28059 of 2026^†

SEPTEMBER 7, 2026

Abhishek Garg, AOR, Yash Gaiha, Ranesh Singh Mankotia and Naman Mehta, Advs. for the Petitioner. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is allowed.

2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.Chandrashekara Bharathi, learned counsel appearing on advance notice for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 26^th July, 2024 and the Order-in-Original was passed on 3^rd October, 2024. Learned counsel submits that the amendment prescribing pre-deposit came into effect only from 1^st October, 2025. Learned counsel submits that in view of that, the condition of pre-deposit cannot be a condition for filing further appeal in this case before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short,”GSTAT”). Learned counsel also submits that the Show Cause Notice was not issued by a proper officer.

4. Issue notice.

5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the GSTAT and the appeal shall be entertained without a pre-deposit. However, this will be subject to the outcome of the present petition.

6. Tag with M.M. Traders v. State of U.P. (SC)/SLP (Civil) Diary No.28833 of 2026.

Directory Three-Month Timeline for Deciding Rectification Does Not Render Authority Functus Officio Post Expiry

Ashwani Kumar — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 11:54:21 +0000

Directory Three-Month Timeline for Deciding Rectification Does Not Render Authority Functus Officio Post Expiry

Issue

Whether the three-month timeframe prescribed under Section 161 for deciding a rectification application is mandatory—thereby rendering the authority functus officio upon its expiry—or directory, requiring a decision on merits for timely filed applications.

Facts

The petitioner filed a rectification application against an Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur.
The application was submitted within the permissible time limit as extended by Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024.
Pursuant to an earlier writ petition, the court had directed the competent authority to decide the rectification application on merits within a stipulated period.
The Assistant Commissioner rejected the rectification application as time-barred, treating the three-month statutory timeline for rendering a decision as mandatory, and held that the authority had become functus officio, thereby declining to decide the application on merits.
The petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court via a writ petition.

Decision

Timely Filing Validated: Held in favour of the assessee/matter remanded. Since the petitioner filed the rectification application within the prescribed statutory window, the application was validly placed before the authority.
Directory Nature of Decision Window: Held in favour of the assessee/matter remanded. The three-month timeline for deciding a rectification application is directory, representing an endeavor-based target rather than a strict jurisdictional limitation that extinguishes power.
Authority Not Functus Officio: Held in favour of the assessee/matter remanded. The expiry of the three-month period does not render the tax authority functus officio or strip it of its jurisdiction to adjudicate a timely filed application on merits.
Relief: The impugned rejection order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the authority to decide the rectification application on merits within three months.

Key Takeaways

Directory vs. Mandatory Timelines: Statutory time limits imposed on tax authorities to decide applications (such as Section 161 rectification orders) are generally directory and intended to prevent procedural delays, rather than mandatory bars that divest jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Retained After Expiry: Tax authorities do not become functus officio simply because the administrative decision window expires; they remain obligated to decide timely filed applications on their substantive merits.
Protection Against Technical Rejections: A taxpayer who files a rectification request within the prescribed limitation period cannot be denied a decision on merits due to delay on the part of the adjudicating authority.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

Nand Kishore Garg

Assistant Commissioner, CGST

Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Siddhartha Sah, JJ.

Writ Petition (M/B) No. 704 of 2026

SEPTEMBER 9, 2026

Rohit Arora, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Shobhit Saharia, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. – Petitioner submitted an application for rectification of Order-in-Original dated 29.08.2024, passed by Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur. That rectification application was submitted by the petitioner on 17.01.2025 well within the time as per Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024. Since decision on the rectification application was not taken for a considerable period of time, petitioner filed Nand Kishore Garg v. Asstt. Commissioner Central GST [Writ Petition (M/B) No.331 of 2026, dated 5-5-2026], which was disposed of by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.05.2026 with a direction to the concerned authority to decide the rectification application within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.

2. The rectification application submitted by the petitioner is rejected by the order dated 30.06.2026. The reason for rejection of that application is indicated in paragraph nos. 6.7, 7 & 8 of the impugned order, which is reproduced below:-

“6.7 As per aforesaid discussion, as per provisions laid down in Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes that “The proper officer for carrying out rectification of the said order shall be the authority who had issued such order, and the said authority shall take a decision on the said application and issue the rectified order, as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date of the of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, as the case may be.” Since, the OIO dated 29.08.2024 was uploaded on portal on 30.08.2024 vide ref. No. ZD0508240226992 dated 30.08.2024, order of rectification should have been passed within three months of the date of its issuance i.e. up to 30.11.2024 or not beyond 28.02.2025 as rectification shall not be done after a period of six months from the date of issuance of such order.

Further, I find that as per the provisions of Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024, last date to decide the said rectification application was on or before 17.04.2025.

7. Since, the present adjudicating authority/proper officer has joined the jurisdictional position on 26.05.2025 only, the time due for the passing rectification order in the instant case was already been lapsed. I further find that due to issues in the BO portal, the application of rectification was also not reflecting at the end of the present adjudicating authority/proper officer.

8. In view of the above discussions and findings, being time barred, rectification in the instant OIO cannot be done at this point of time as per provisions laid down under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as time-line prescribed under 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024. Thus, I have no other option than to dispose the application filed by the applicant for rectification in OIO reference No. ZD0508240226992 dated 30.08.2024 [OIO No.17/AC/CGST/Rudrapur /2024-25 dated 29.08.2024] without considering the ground made in the application and accordingly, making any rectification in the said order.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s rectification application is unsustainable, as Clause-4 of the Notification dated 08.10.2024 (which is reproduced in paragraph 6.7 of the impugned order) nowhere provides that a decision, if not taken on the rectification application within three months, cannot be taken thereafter. He submits that the expression used in Clause-4 of Notification dated 08.10.2024 is that decision on rectification application shall be taken as far as possible within three months from the date of making such application. He further submits that the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur, in paragraph 6.6 of the impugned order has admitted that the rectification application was filed by the petitioner well within time as prescribed under Notification dated 08.10.2024, therefore, that application could not have been rejected only on the ground that a period of more than three months has elapsed after filing of that application. He further submits that the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 is in teeth of the Division Bench order of this Court passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 331 of 2026, Nand Kishore Garg v. Assistant Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax, where the competent authority was asked to take a decision on petitioner’s rectification application on merits.

4. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Since petitioner’s application for rectification was made well within time, therefore, the competent authority could not have refused to decide the application on merits merely because a period of more than three months has elapsed after filing of the application. Clause-4 of the Notification dated 08.10.2024 unequivocally fixes a timeline of three months, however, that timeline is not mandatorily to be followed, and it indicates that the competent authority shall make endeavor to take decision on rectification application within three months; but it doesn’t mean that once three months’ period has expired, the competent authority becomes functus officio or loses the power to decide the application on merits.

6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur to decide the rectification application of the petitioner on merits within a period of three months.

Writ petition challenging assessment is non-maintainable as GSTAT is functional with notified appeal timelines.

Ashwani Kumar — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 11:47:14 +0000

Writ petition challenging assessment is non-maintainable as GSTAT is functional with notified appeal timelines.

Issue

Whether a writ petition challenging an appellate order under GST can be entertained by the High Court when the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has become functional with extended timelines notified for filing appeals.

Facts

Period of Dispute: The matter pertains to the assessment period 2020-21.
Initial & Appellate Orders: The petitioner originally challenged an order passed by the Superintendent under Section 73, which was subsequently affirmed by the First Appellate Authority.
Writ Jurisdiction Invoked: Due to the non-constitution/non-functionality of the GSTAT at the relevant time, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking interim relief.
Notification of Appellate Forum: Subsequently, S.O. No. 4220(E) dated 17 September 2025 enabled the filing of appeals under Section 112 before the GSTAT.
Filing Guidelines & Timelines: The User Advisory for the GSTAT e-Filing Portal prescribed staggered filing windows with an outer limit of 30 June 2026, and a 3-month window for APL-04 orders communicated on or after 1 April 2026.

Decision

In Favor of Revenue: The High Court declined to keep the writ petition pending and directed the petitioner to approach the GSTAT.
Non-Maintainability of Writ: The Court held that a writ petition is maintainable only when the statutory appellate forum is unavailable. Since GSTAT is now functional and timelines stand notified, extraordinary writ jurisdiction need not be exercised.
Mandatory Pre-Deposit: The Court reiterated that conditions attached to statutory appeals under GST, including the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8), must be strictly complied with.
Direction to Approach Tribunal: The petitioner was directed to complete the required pre-deposit (if not already done) and file an appeal before the GSTAT within the timelines specified in the User Advisory.
No Opinion on Merits: The High Court clarified that if the appeal is filed in compliance with Section 112 and relevant rules, the GSTAT shall entertain it on its merits, without the High Court expressing any opinion on the case’s merits.

Key Takeaways

Exhaustion of Alternative Remedy: Writs challenging GST demand orders will no longer be kept pending or entertained by High Courts now that GSTAT e-filing and benches are operational.
Strict Pre-Deposit Compliance: Compliance with statutory requirements, such as the pre-deposit under Section 112(8), remains a mandatory precondition for invoking appeal remedies before the Tribunal.
Notification Timelines Govern Appeals: Litigants must adhere strictly to the notified filing windows and timelines outlined under S.O. 4220(E) and official GSTAT e-filing portal advisories.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Ajit Kumar Pati

Pr. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise

Harish Tandon, CJ.
and MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

W.P.(C) No. 10913 of 2026

MAY 15, 2026

Sriman Arpit Mohanty, Adv. for the Petitioner. Umesh Chandra Sahoo, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24^th February, 2025 passed by the Superintendent, Balasore III Range, Balasore Division for the tax periods from April, 2020 to March, 2021 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “GST Act”), which was affirmed in an appeal by the Appellate Authority on 26^th December, 2025.

2. According to learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, although the remedy by way of an appeal is provided under Section 112 of the GST Act under the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) against the order in appeal, such remedy could not be availed as the GSTAT was not constituted and made functional and, therefore, this writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Department corroborated the aforesaid stand of the petitioner so far as it relates to non-constitution and non-functional of the GSTAT at the relevant point, but arduously submits that it does not absolve the aggrieved person in complying with the mandate envisaged under sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the GST Act putting a restriction in filing the appeal unless the appellant paid in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the said order as admitted by him and a sum equivalent to ten per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute subject to a maximum of twenty crore rupees.

4. It would be apposite to quote the said provision, which runs thus:-

“(8) No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid—

(a)

in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him, and

(b)

a sum, equal to ten per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount paid under sub-section (6) of Section 107, arising from the said order, subject to a maximum of twenty crore rupees, in relation to which the appeal has been filed.”

4.1. It has been brought to our notice that the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance issued a notification being S.O. No.4220(E) dated 17^th September, 2025 providing an opportunity to an aggrieved person to file an appeal in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 in the following:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the 30^th day of June, 2026, as the date upto which appeal may be filed by the Appellate Tribunal under this Act in respect of all cases where the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal before the 1^st day of April, 2026 and all appeals in respect of order communicated on or after 1^st April, 2026 may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date on which such order is communicated to the person preferring the appeal.”

4.2. Apropos the same and in order to facilitate smooth filing of an appeal before the said Tribunal, a “User Advisor for the GSTAT e-Filing Portal” is also issued by the authorities containing the timeline within which the appeal can be filed before the GSTAT in the following:

“User Advisory for the GSTAT E-Filing Portal

Please note that this advisory is only a snapshot for the entire appeal filing process. For detailed understanding and in order to have a seamless experience on the portal, users are advised to refer to the E-filing user manual, FAQs and user videos.

Important Timelines

Staggered Filing Period (Until December 31^st, 2025):- The filing window for second appeals filing is based on staggering of the ARN/CRN of first appeal filed in APL-01/03 before the Appellate Authority or the notice in RVN-01 issued by the Revisional Authority. The system first validates the ARN/CRN date and only upon successful validation of the date of the ARN/CRN of the APL-01/APL-03/RVN-01, the appellant can proceed further to Login/Registration. The schedule for filing is as follows:

Table

Sl. No.	Period of filing appeal in Form APL-01 or APL-03 under section 107 of the Act or issuance of notice in Form RVN-01 in terms of section 108 of the Act.	Period during which the appeal under section 112 of the Act before the GSTAT may be filed
1	Such orders of the Appellate authorities or revisional authorities sought to be appealed before the appellate tribunal where the Appeal in Form GST APL-01 or GST APL-03 or notice in Form GST RVN-01 filed or, as the case may be, issued on the common portal on or before 31.01.2022	Period commencing on 24.09.2025 and ending on 31.10.2025 or any date succeeding such date being not later than 30.06.2026
2	Such orders of the Appellate authorities or revisional authorities sought to be appealed before the appellate tribunal where the Appeal in Form GST APL-01 or GST APL-03 or notice in Form GST RVN-01 filed or, as the case may be, issued on the common portal on or after 01.02.2022 but on or before 28.02.2023	Period commencing on 01.11.2025 and ending on 30.11.2025 or any date succeeding such date being not later than 30.06.2026
3	Such orders of the Appellate authorities or revisional authorities sought to be appealed before the appellate tribunal where the Appeal in Form GST APL-01 or GST APL-03 or notice in Form GST RVN-01 filed or, as the case may be issued on the common portal on or after 01.03.2023 but on or before 31.01.2024	Period commencing on 01.12.2025 and ending on 31.12.2025 or any date succeeding such date being not later than 30.06.2026
4	Such orders of the Appellate authorities or revisional authorities sought to be appealed before the appellate tribunal where the Appeal in Form GST APL-01 or GST APL-03 or notice in Form CST RVN-01 filed or, as the case may be, issued on the common portal on or after 01.02.2024 but on or before 31.05.2024	Period commencing on 01.01.2026 and ending on 31.01.2026 or any date succeeding such date being not later than 30.06.2026
5	Such orders of the Appellate authorities or revisional authorities sought to be appealed before the appellate tribunal where the Appeal in Form GST APL-01 or GST APL-03 or notice in Form GST RVN-01 filed or, as the case may be, issued on the common portal on or after 01.06.2024 but on or before 31.03.2026	Period commencing on 01.02.2026 or any date succeeding such date being not later than 30.06.2026

It may be noted that if an appeal before the GSTAT relating to any ARN/CRN could not be filed within the window scheduled for it, the appellant can still come on any subsequent date but before 30^th June, 2026.

It may further be noted that appeals before the GSTAT against any order of the appellate/revisional authority in APL-04 that has been communicated on or after 1^st April, 2026 shall have to filed before the appellate Tribunal within three months of the order of APL-04 being communicated.

Appeals before the GSTAT in cases where the appeal in APL-01/03 or notices in RVN-01 are not available in the GSTN system: for all the Appeals filed before the Appellate authority or notices of the Revisional authority where the ARN/CRN is not available in the GSTN system, the filing window will open from the midnight of 31^st December 2025 and will expire on June 30. 2026.

Thus, users are strongly advised not to hurry since more than sufficient time has been provided for filing appeals before the GSTAT wherever the orders in APL-04 have been issued on or before 31^st March 2026.

***”

4.3. It is also brought to the notice that certain modifications are made by Order dated 24.09.2025 of the President, GST Appellate Tribunal and said Order has been revoked with following Order dated 16.12.2025:

“Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 123 of the aforesaid Rules (Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025), the undersigned is pleased to revoke the Order dated 24.09.2025 with effect from 18.12.2025. This revocation shall not impugn the validity of any appeals lodged pursuant to the prior order before 18.12.2025. This order is without prejudice to the powers of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.”

4.4. It is no longer res integra that the Writ Court can be approached assailing an order for which the forum of appeal is provided and the same is entertainable in the event the forum is not made functional or constituted as the person cannot be rendered remediless. Equally it is true that if conditions are attached to filing an appeal before such forum, the Writ Court shall ensure strict compliance thereof as a person cannot steal a march taking a shelter that there is no inhibition in the writ Court in entertaining the writ petition and passing an order taking departure from the said statutory provision.

5. Since the forum has already been provided in the statute, which is now made functional and the period for filing the appeal has been extended in a fragmented manner, it would not be proper for the Writ Court to keep such writ petitions pending as the dispute raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition can be adjudicated by the said forum and, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount if not already deposited, as required under sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the GST Act before the GSTAT to file the appeal within the period specified in the timeline mentioned above.

II.

The petitioner, as undertaken, shall file appeal as per the timeline given in the “User Advisor for the GSTAT e-Filing Portal”.

III.

In the event the appeal is filed and the same is found to be in order as per the requirement of Section 112 of the GST Act read with relevant Rules framed thereunder, the same shall be entertained by the GSTAT.

6. This Court makes it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits on the First Appellate Order. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Appeal Against CESTAT Order Determining Taxability of Service Lies to Supreme Court Under Section 35L

Ashwani Kumar — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:45:11 +0000

Appeal Against CESTAT Order Determining Taxability of Service Lies to Supreme Court Under Section 35L

Issue

Whether an appeal against a final order of CESTAT determining the taxability of a service is maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G or lies exclusively before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Facts

Appellate Challenge: An appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before the High Court against a final order of the CESTAT in cross service tax appeals between the parties.
Core Subject Matter: The primary issue determined by the CESTAT in the impugned order related to the taxability of a service.
Precedent Relied Upon by Appellant: The appellant cited the Allahabad High Court decision in NKG Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (All) to support the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court.
Judicial Observation on Precedent: The Court observed that in the cited NKG Infrastructure decision, the specific issue of maintainability was neither raised nor decided, rendering it inapposite.
Failure to Demonstrate Exemption: The appellant failed to produce any statutory provision or binding precedent to show why an exception to the established jurisdictional rule should be made.

Decision

The High Court held that where the CESTAT determines the taxability of a service, an appeal against such an order lies exclusively before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.
The maintainability issue stood concluded against the appellant in alignment with binding Division Bench precedent.
Consequently, the appeal was held not maintainable before the High Court, and the appellant was relegated to pursue the statutory remedy before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.

Key Takeaways

Exclusive Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, any order of the CESTAT determining the rate of duty or the taxability/classification of a service falls exclusively within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Bar on High Court Jurisdiction: High Courts cannot entertain appeals under Section 35G when the core dispute revolves around taxability or rate of duty determination.
Distinction on Sub Silentio Precedents: Judgments where maintainability was not explicitly raised, contested, or decided do not constitute binding precedent on the issue of jurisdiction.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi East

Samiah International Builder (P.) Ltd.

ANIL KSHETRAPAL and Ms. SHAIL JAIN, JJ.

CEAC No. 5 of 2024
CM APPL. No. 50039 of 2024

JULY 28, 2026

Ms. Navruti Ojha, Adv. and Shubham Tyagi, SSC for the Petitioner. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Ekta Kumari, Samarth, Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Ritika Verma and R.P. Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax matters under the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, inter alia, assailing the Final Order No. ST/A/51686-51687/2023-ST(DB) dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Service Tax Appeal No. ST/55788/2014 filed by the Respondent and Service Tax Appeal No. ST/55922/2014 filed by the Revenue, arising out of Order-in-Original No. 20/2016-ST dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, Gurgaon.

2. The maintainability of the present Appeal before this Court is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. It is contended that the expression “determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise”, occurring in Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is wide enough to encompass the question of taxability of a particular service. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST v. JMD Ltd [2024 SCC OnLine Del 9141].

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, on the other hand, submits that the Allahabad High Court, in Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (All), has held that an appeal before the High Court is maintainable where the taxability of a particular service is in dispute.

4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is evident that the Division Bench of this Court has held that where the CESTAT determines the taxability of a particular service, an appeal against such determination would lie before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not before the High Court. In arriving at the said conclusion, reliance has been placed uponCommissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Spicejet Ltd [SERTA No. 2 of 2024, dated 5-12-2024].

6. A perusal of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) shows that only the questions framed therein were adjudicated. The issue of the maintainability of an appeal before the High Court was neither raised nor considered.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has also failed to persuade this Court that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench has overlooked any relevant statutory provision or binding precedent warranting a different view.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the present Appeal is held to be not maintainable before this Court. The Appellant is relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

9. Accordingly, the present Appeal along with pending application (s) if any, stands disposed of.

12 GST notifications/Circulars/Order issued on 28th June 2019 by CBIC

CA Satbir Singh — Sun, 30 Jun 2019 04:52:40 +0000

12 GST notifications/Circulars/Order issued on 28th June 2019 by CBIC

CBIC has issued

7 GST Central Tax Notifications,
One Removal of Difficulty Order and
4 Central GST Circulars on 28th June 2019

to Give effect to 35th GST Council Decisions and to clarify certain issues in GST.

Vide these notifications CBIC has

notified due dates of Monthly and Quarterly GSTR-1 and GSTR 3B for the period from July 2019 to September 2019.
Extended due date of GSTR-7, ITC-04, GSTR 9, GSTR 9C and GSTR 9A.
Exempted Person Supplying OIDAR Services from Outside India from filing of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C.
Amended GST Rule 10A, 32A, 46, 49, 87 and 95A. It inserted new rules 95A.
Amended/inserted Form No. GSTR-4, GSTR-9, GST PMP-09, GST RFD-10B and DRC-03.

By four circulars CBIC clarified on

- GST treatment of secondary or post-sales discounts,
- Processing of refund in Form GST RFD-01A wrongly mapped on portal,
- Place of supply for Services provided by Ports or on goods temporarily imported in India and
- GST on additional / penal interest.

Title	Notification No.	Date
CBIC notifies extended due date of Form GSTR-9, GSTR-9A & GSTR-9C	Order No. 6/2019-Central Tax	28/06/2019
Due date to furnish Form GST ITC-04 extended to 31.08.2019	Notification No. 32/2019 – Central Tax	28/06/2019
Central Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2019	Notification No. 31/2019-Central Tax	28/06/2019
CBIC exempts OIDAR Service supplier from filing of FORM GSTR-9/9C	Notification No. 30 /2019 –Central Tax	28/06/2019
Due date to furnish Form GSTR-3B for July, 2019 to September, 2019	Notification No. 29/2019 – Central Tax	28/06/2019
Due date to furnish Form GSTR-1 for turnover of more than Rs. 1.5 crore extended	Notification No. 28/2019–Central Tax	28/06/2019
Due date to furnish Form GSTR-1 for turnover up to Rs. 1.5 crore	Notification No. 27/2019 – Central Tax	28/06/2019
GST TDS returns in Form GSTR-7 due date extended to 31.08.2019	Notification No. 26/2019 – Central Tax	28/06/2019
Clarification on GST treatment of secondary or post-sales discounts	Circular No. 105/24/2019-GST	28/06/2019
Processing of refund in Form GST RFD-01A wrongly mapped on portal	Circular No. 104/23/2019-GST	28/06/2019
Place of supply for Services provided by Ports or on goods temporarily imported in India	Circular No. 103/22/2019-GST	28/06/2019
GST on additional / penal interest- Clarification	Circular No. 102/21/2019-GST	28/06/2019