Writ Jurisdiction
5 articles
No Rent Agreement for the Additional Place, No Ground for Cancellation: Gauhati High Court Restores a GST Registration Cancelled Under Section 29(2)
A Guwahati trader lost his GST registration because he could not produce a rent agreement for an additional place of business that was the subject of a landlord dispute. The Gauhati High Court held that neither Section 29(2), Rule 21 nor Form REG-01 supports cancellation on that ground.
13 min readSeven Days Means Seven Days: Calcutta High Court Quashes Section 129 Penalty Orders Passed 175 Days Late on Two Detained Lorries
Two lorries hired out to a transporter were detained in July 2025 and the penalty orders came in January 2026. The Calcutta High Court held that the seven-day period for the order in Section 129(3) had run out on 24 July 2025, that nothing paused it, and that the orders were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.
14 min readWho Is the Proper Officer for a Section 122 Penalty? Telangana High Court on Jurisdiction, Section 160 and the Appeal Route in a Rs. 17.27 Crore Fake-Invoice Case
A trader challenged a Section 122 show cause notice and a penalty order on the ground that no proper officer had been assigned that function before CBIC Circular 254/11/2025-GST. The Telangana High Court rejected the jurisdiction plea and sent every other ground to the appellate authority.
15 min readActual Credit, Not Available Credit: Delhi High Court Upholds a ₹2.31 Crore Anti-Profiteering Order Made After the Reckitt Benckiser Remand
A Bhubaneswar developer argued that the anti-profiteering authorities had simply swapped 'purchase value' for 'turnover' after the Reckitt Benckiser remand, and that unclaimed pre-GST CENVAT credit should offset its post-GST credit. The Delhi High Court disagreed on both counts.
14 min readSupreme Court: A Lessee Cannot Use Article 226 to Reopen a Title Dispute Its Landlord Already Lost
Deciding an appeal arising from a decades-old encroachment dispute over land in Hyderabad, the Supreme Court held that lessees claiming through a trust could not invoke Article 226 to protect their possession once the trust itself — after losing before the Division Bench and withdrawing its own Special Leave Petition with liberty only to file a fresh suit — was barred from doing so. The lessees' writ petitions, filed in their own names soon after the trust's remedy was confined to a civil suit, were themselves an attempt to keep the writ route open by other means.
12 min read