TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
I simply use to wonder as to what prompts an officer to pass an order that is set aside or quashed at a later date by a competent court. The first reason could be that the officer who passes adjudication order or order on first appeal often forgets the fact the officer is a quasi-judicial officer, as the instructions of the higher officials on confirming huge demands seems to be predominantly forcing him to pass such an irrational order. As I come across several high court orders on a daily basis, it prompts me to think on the following lines.
One: What purpose is achieved by the officer who passes an order which is not consistent with legal provisions as well as CBIC circulars or instructions?. Is the officer not aware that he is required to be updated on all latest pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as Jurisdictional high courts?. If ignorance of law is not an excuse for a taxpayer, how non- updation of latest developments by a quasi judicial officer is acceptable?.
Two: Under CGST, three levels are adjudicating the show cause notices comprising of level 1 with Superintendent, Level 2 AC/DC, Level 3 JC/Addl Commissioners. This being so, even an adjudication order passed at the level 1 should stand the test of appeal and should be confirmed as correct one even in case it reaches the GSTAT. What is happening is the other way round and some of the orders passed at level 3 are being quashed. While I am able to appreciate the kind of expertise as well as exposure that one superintendent is expected to have, even the highest adjudicating authority at additional commissioner level also passes some orders which are later being quashed. The quantum may be less but what matters is how an officer at additional commissioner level is passing orders which is simply quashed by the jurisdictional high court at a later date?.
Three: The purpose of this series is not to criticize the officer or the system but I am only exploring each and every possibility to bring in at least some improvement. Keeping this in mind, today we are examining few latest and very recent pronouncements in the own language of the respective courts.
Case one: As reported in M/s DRF Infra Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus UT of J&K Th. Its. Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Commissioner, Goods and Services Taxes Jammu, Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals II) Appellate Authority, Jammu, State Taxes Department, State Taxes Officer, Circle Rajouri, Deputy Commissioner, Recovery, State Taxes Department Jammu. - 2026 (2) TMI 109 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT ruled in para 7 as:7. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the present petition is disposed of by quashing the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent No. 4 and order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner is granted fifteen days’ time from today to submit its response to the Show-Cause Notice, and, if necessary, an opportunity of hearing be also afforded to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after considering the petitioner’s response. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, shall deposit 10% of the total tax payable in terms of the demand raised, with the respondents.
Comments: Who is responsible for time, efforts as well energy spent by taxpayer as well the counsel of the petitioner ?.
Case 2: As reported in Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST Delhi Versus Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative - 2026 (2) TMI 112 - SC Order, the Supreme Court passed the following order.
1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.
2. However, the time to refund the amount by the respondent as directed by the appellate authority, is extended by two months from today.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Comments: The order may be simple one with just three paras but I ponder on the following lines. The highest court of this court examines and concludes that the SLP of the Government is dismissed. Why the possible success rate of this SLP was not examined well even before preferring the SLP?. The respondent had taken it as a challenge and engaged a team of senior advocates to ensure that the SLP is dismissed in favor of the taxpayer. Who is responsible for passing an order that is commented by jurisdictional high court as well as the Top Court of India?. Interestingly, the division bench of Delhi High court has examined issues in detail and passed reasoned order.
Case 3: As reported in Kishore Nichani Versus The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi., The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Mumbai. The State Tax Officer, Mumbai. - 2026 (1) TMI 1560 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, the following is the operative portion.
14. In the light of the above discussion, in our clear opinion, the facts of the present case are not in dispute that there is no outstanding GST liability of the petitioner, and hence, in these circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the restoration of the petitioner’s GST registration and to that effect the petitioner’s application for revocation of the cancellation of its registration was required to be allowed. In these circumstances, the petition needs to succeed as respondent No. 3 has clearly not acted in consonance of the provisions of Section 30 read with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules.
15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
16. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
Comments: The trend of non imposition of cost on erring party, be it taxpayer or Government may require a revisit. Justice is rendered by all high courts in appropriate manner on legal basis but in almost all cases, no cost is being imposed which gives necessary courage to tax officials to continue to pass orders which are most likely to be quashed, if tried before the jurisdictional High Court.
Conclusion: Let us discuss few more interesting cases in part 3.