Delhi High Court Directs CBIC To Issue Directions To Avoid Repeated GST Litigation Despite Earlier Rulings

The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar noted that a large number of writ petitions raising substantially similar issues continued to be filed despite its earlier judgments in Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST, Delhi Zone & Anr. and Parag Garg v. Commissioner, Adjudication, CGST, Delhi West & Anr.

In Gaurav Jain, a coordinate bench had held that the amended provision requiring a 10% pre-deposit of the penalty for filing appeals against penalty-only orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be applied to adjudicatory proceedings that were initiated before the amendment came into force on October 1, 2025.

In Parag Garg, the Court held that the expression “any person” under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act is not confined to a “taxable person” and can include persons who are not registered or liable to be registered under the GST regime.

Observing that the repeated filing of petitions on the very same issues had resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time, the Court directed CBIC to examine the relevant judgments and issue appropriate directions before the next date of hearing.

"Considering that a large number of writ petitions raising similar issues are repeatedly being filed before this Court, which has resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of the Court's time, Members of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) are directed to examine the relevant judgments and issue appropriate directions in the matter before the next date of hearing", it directed.

The development follows the Court's earlier order asking the concerned CGST authorities to clarify whether the two judgments had been accepted by the Department or whether proceedings had been initiated, or were proposed to be initiated, to challenge them before a higher forum.

The Court was informed that the Commissioner, CGST, was yet to examine the judgments and study their implications.

The Court had emphasised that when it had already adjudicated upon a particular issue, the concerned department was expected to examine the applicability of those decisions to subsequent cases with due diligence and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

The matter will next be heard on October 27.

For Respondents: Priyanshu Chhabra, SPC, with Harsh Vashisht, GP, Ruchika Mamgai, Advocate, and Ishita Kumar, Advocate, for R1/UOI. Aditya Singla, SSC-CBIC, with Nehaol Sri L V, Arya Suresh Nair, Akhil Sharma and Dhananjay Gautham, Advocates, for R-2 and R-3. Shailesh Kumar, Principal Commissioner, Delhi North (through VC).