If not now, then when?. Part three under GST Laws.

It is a basic and fundamental proposition that the verdicts rendered by the Supreme Court is binding on all officers across India. In a like manner,  any decision rendered by a Jurisdictional high court is binding on officers  working within the respective jurisdictional area. Even all decisions of all other high courts in India are binding on all tax officials working in a particular State, so long as there are no contrary decisions on the issue rendered by the respective jurisdictional high court. I wish this message to reach all tax officials across India, as it is possible that one officer out of 10,000 may be unaware of the above.

As the intention of this series is to bring in at least some improvement by way of reduction in the cases where the adjudication orders or even the show cause notice itself in some cases (if any), are subsequently set aside or even quashed,  it is proposed now to analyse three such recent cases.

Case 1: The Calcutta High court on 28/01/2026 passed order in the matter of Shine Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Large Taxpayer Unit & Ors. - 2026 (2) TMI 107 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and the operative portions read as below:

17. On such score, alone, the appellate order dated 28th March, 2025 deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

18. It is noticed that the Adjudicating Authority/Proper Officer has also not taken into consideration the said records i.e. Form GSTR 3B and GSTR-9, which were available with it while passing the adjudication order. For such reason, the adjudication order dated 16th January, 2024 also stands set aside.

19. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority/Proper Officer for fresh decision on merits. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing any adjudication order.

20. As requested, the petitioner shall be entitled to file a written note or a reply before the Proper Officer within a period of two weeks from date. The Adjudicating Officer/Proper Officer shall pass appropriate order upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and upon considering the written note or reply, filed by the petitioner, if any.

Comments: The order against which the petitioner preferred this writ was passed by an officer at the level of Joint Commissioner. This is not first order but order passed by the first appellate authority under section 107. As commented several times in earlier articles, it is high time CBIC as well as GST Council may have a look of at least 10 high value orders passed under section 107 to verify themselves why this line of argument that as per present trend, no useful purpose is served by section 107 is put forth.

Case 2:  The Gujarat High Court on 22/01/2026 in the matter of Aarti Enterprise Through Savitaben Brindavan Agarwal Versus The State Of Gujarat & Anr. - 2026 (2) TMI 106 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ruled as below:

6. Hence, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 05.02.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 and subsequent proceedings arising from the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside.

The matter is remanded to the jurisdictional State Tax Officer. He shall pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner an in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs.

Comments: It appears that SCN was issued on 22/11/2024 and personal hearing was proposed on 31/12/2024, 08/01/2025 and on 17/01/2025. Since no reply was received till 05/02/2025, the adjudication order was passed on 05/02/2025.

Issues: The officer is well aware that this order is liable to be quashed at a later date as this is against the principles of natural justice as it violates section 75 (4) very clearly. A reasoned officer would never pass this order as he had an opportunity to communicate the SCN to the taxpayer not by simply uploading in portal as he was not prevented from sending speed post or RPAD.  The officer also failed in other front when he was in a hurry to pass the order  on 05/02/2025 itself, as orders passed only on or after 21/02/2025 could sustain, in view of the fact that SCN is dated 21/11/2024. Above all, there are at least 100 verdicts by High Courts on 75(4) violation and the officer is just not bothered about this aspect at all.

Case 3: The Rajasthan High Court (Division Bench) on 07/01/2026 in the matter of M/s. M.R. Traders Versus The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi, The GST Council, The Superintendent CGST Range, XIII Circle Nagaur, The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods And Service Tax, Jodhpur - 2026 (2) TMI 99 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ruled as below:

15. It is stated in the affidavit that it was due to the lack of communication and proper advisory on the part of the counsel/consultant accountant that the petitioner was deprived of taking timely steps to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Merely, because an objection was taken by the respondents that the affidavit of the petitioner is not accompanied by supporting affidavit of his consultant accountant/counsel, an act beyond the control of the petitioner, due to change of his counsel by him, the stand taken by petitioner cannot be given a short shrift.

16. Taking a wholesome view, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned appellate order dated 11.10.2024 is set aside. Delay of 160 in filing of the appeal is condoned in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The appeal is remanded to the appellate authority for adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

My comments: Apparently it may look as a condonation of delay case whereas the division bench has rightly analysed the facts of this case in depth by doing root cause analysis of the facts of this case and concluded as above. It is a reasoned order passed by division bench after considering various judicial pronouncements in appropriate manner and arrived at the correct conclusion.

The above case law also shall be a guiding factor to all taxpayers as well as tax professionals when they approach GSTAT on condonation of delay matters.

Before parting: Let us continue to examine all verdicts where OIO or OIA are set aside or quashed in a critical manner in coming days.