Taxpayer's Assignment To State Tax Administration Doesn't Bar DGGI's Pan-India Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that merely because a taxpayer is administratively assigned to the State tax administration, it does not bar the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) from exercising its pan-India jurisdiction to investigate alleged GST evasion.

The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with a batch of petitions filed by a real estate company which has GST registrations in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana.

"Further, the Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate and Anr.1 , has explained that administrative allocation of taxpayers does not exclude intelligence-based enforcement by the other tax administration. The investigation in the present case arose from intelligence concerning an alleged chain of transactions extending across several States. The Petitioners' registration with State authorities did not, therefore, exclude the jurisdiction of DGGI", the court ruled

The petitions challenged a common order passed by DGGI (Central GST Delhi North) confirming separate GST demands against the company's three registrations, over alleged chain of invoices issued without corresponding supplies.

The demands were ₹2.62 crore for Karnataka, ₹10.57 lakh for Tamil Nadu and ₹2.94 crore for Telangana, apart from interest and penalties.

Petitioner contended that the Delhi North Commissionerate lacked jurisdiction since its GST registrations had been assigned to the respective State tax authorities.

The High Court however rejected the jurisdictional objection. It noted that Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax appoints specified DGGI officers as Central Tax officers with powers extending throughout India.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate and Anr (2025), the Court observed that administrative allocation of taxpayers to particular tax authorities does not exclude intelligence-based enforcement by another tax administration.

The Court further noted that Notification No. 02/2022-Central Tax confers pan-India jurisdiction on specified Additional/Joint Commissioners for adjudication of DGGI notices.

The Court also examined the mechanism under Circular No. 169/01/2022-GST, under which a common Show Cause Notice involving noticees falling under different Commissionerates is to be adjudicated by reference to the noticee having the highest tax demand.

In the present case, the highest demand in the common Show Cause Notice was ₹20.65 crore against one Disha Traders, whose principal place of business was in Delhi. The Court therefore found the Delhi North Commissionerate to be the competent authority to adjudicate the common notice.

As such, the Court relegated the Petitioners to the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

For Petitioner: Advocates Anandaday Misshra, Mrinal Bharat Ram, Dhwani Tandon and Sherodha Tripathi.

For Respondents: Advocates Vedansh Anand, SPC with Shivam Kumar, GP, Naincy Jain, Jr Standing Counsel for CBIC