TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
01 Sep 2026 
This article is written without any sort of aid through AI. As on date, it is heartening to observe that several benches of the GSTAT have started passing final orders resulting in reduction of dispute on GST issues. Prior to full fledged functioning of the GSTAT, the high courts were liberal in entertaining the writs whereas the trend has completely changed ever since the GSTAT portal has started accepting the second appeal on GST matters with effect from 24/09/2025. This is a good trend as the precious time of the high courts are saved by way of suggesting and disposing such writs to choose efficacious alternate remedy by way of second appeal.
I had an occasion to come across two writs being entertained in the recent past wherein the departmental counsel has fairly agreed that there were Bonafide errors on the part of GST Authorities and accordingly the writs were fully allowed which we shall see in today's write up.
Case one: High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Agrawal v. Union of India on 20/08/2026. This is one of the interesting case where the electronic credit ledger was blocked and on completion of stipulated period of one year, the credit ledger was duly unblocked. The dispute was on non -compliance of the required procedures in line with the Rule 86A. The learned counsel for the respondent has openly agreed in the court to ensure strict compliance of procedures in all future cases. The relevant para reads as "4. When asked why Rule 86A of the Rules of 2017 had not been complied with, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the same was a bona fide mistake. It is further submitted that, although the concerned authority had reasons for taking such action, no proper and reasoned order was passed, nor was an opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner prior to effecting such blocking".
The best para amongst all the 8 paras is para number 8 which reads as "8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the mandatory requirements contemplated under Rule 86A of the Rules of 2017 were not complied with in the present matter. However, treating the present matter as an exceptional case and accepting the unconditional apology tendered by learned counsel on behalf of the concerned officer, this writ petition is disposed of with a clear and categorical warning that, in the event any future action is taken by the respondents without due compliance with Rule 86A of the Rules of 2017, such action shall render the respondents liable to pay appropriate compensation to the aggrieved party. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of".
This is one of the finest orders that I have come across in the recent times wherein the order was not only for the appellant and the respondent ( The particular officer who has passed that order) but to all the taxpayers as well as the entire field formations. The message of the Rajasthan High Court is binding on all the State as well as Central officers as Rule 86A is the same all over India under the concept One Nation One Tax. Hence it is expected that from September 2026 onwards, Rule 86A is applied only in most appropriate manner.
Case two: Bombay High Court on 01/07/2026 in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank Versus Union of India and Ors. - 2026 (7) TMI 362 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein the order was passed ignoring the principles of natural justice. This case is an eye opener to all taxpayers as well as tax professions on section 75 (4) wherein personal hearing is required. The arguments put before the division bench was the simplest one which reads as "4. At the very outset, we may note that the learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem to the effect that the Impugned Order was passed by the second Respondent without hearing the Petitioner. In this context, Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that on such ground alone the order is vitiated. This for the reason that it fails to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard and therefore, violates the principles of audi alteram partem".
As the fact that no personal hearing opportunity was provided is crystal clear on papers the counsel for the respondent has agreed to the above arguments and his submissions read as "5. Mr. Jitendra Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents on instructions and in his usual fairness would agree to the above and submits that the second Respondent will hear the Petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law".
The High Court has simply passed the order as "(i) The Impugned Order dated 16th February 2026 passed by the second Respondent for the above reasons, is set aside.
(ii) The proceedings are remanded to the second Respondent for de novo hearing.
(iii) The second Respondent shall hear the parties afresh and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law and shall endeavour to pass such reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, with the co-operation of the Petitioner during the proceedings".
This case is binding on all the tax officials all over India as Section 75 (4) reads as "An opportunity of hearing shall be granted" which is applicable to the whole of India.
Conclusion: Both the judgements of Rajasthan as well as Bombay high courts have far reaching consequences as the views expressed by the courts are on unambiguous terms. Hence it is expected that all concerned take advantage of the above two recent rulings of the High Courts wherein writs were disposed by way of admission even during the GSTAT regime.