W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 25

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 06.08.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 16.09.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 16.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010483562025

+ W.P.(C) 10607/2025 and CM APPL. 43991/2025

KATYANI EXPORTS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH.

AJAY SINGH GAUTAM .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr.

Deepanshu Saini, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC

along with Ms. Malika Kumari,

Adv.

Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh

Rudy, CGSC along with Ms.

Usha Jamnal, ⁠Ms. Nyasa

Sharma, ⁠Mr.Ankit Khatri, Mr.

Siddhant Nagar and Mr.

Abhinav Mall, Advs.

Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr.

Aditya Choudhary, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010483582025

+ W.P.(C) 10609/2025 and CM APPL. 43995/2025

VISHNU IMPEX THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH. AJAY

SINGH GAUTAM .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr.

Deepanshu Saini, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC

along with Ms. Malika Kumari,

Adv.

Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr.

Aditya Choudhary, Advs.

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 2 of 25

# CNR No. DLHC010483622025

+ W.P.(C) 10613/2025 and CM APPL. 44002/2025

MATRIX DESIGN ENTE RPRISES THROUGH ITS

PARTNER SH. UMESH CHANDRA MISHRA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr.

Deepanshu Saini, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC

along with Ms. Malika Kumari,

Adv.

Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr.

Aditya Choudhary, Advs.

Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC

along with Mr. Muhammad

Aamir Khan, Adv.

# CNR No. DLHC010483632025

+ W.P.(C) 10614/2025 and CM APPL. 44004/2025

DIVINE CREATIONS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH. AJAY

SINGH GAUTAM .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr.

Deepanshu Saini, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr.

Aditya Choudhary, Advs.

Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC

along with Mr. Apurv Yadav

and Mr. NamanChoula, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010484682025

+ W.P.(C) 10718/2025 and CM APPL. 44356/2025

ETEMAD CARGO THROUGH ITS SURVIVING PARTNER

SH. UMESH CHANDRA MISHRA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr.

Deepanshu Saini, Advs.

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 3 of 25

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC

along with Ms. Malika Kumari,

Adv.

Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr.

Aditya Choudhary, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010484182025

+ W.P.(C) 10670/2025 and CM APPL. 44126/2025

AURA CREATIONS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH.ARUN

GUPTA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr.

Deepanshu Saini, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh

Rudy, CGSC along with Ms.

Usha Jamnal, ⁠Ms. Nyasa

Sharma, ⁠Mr. Ankit Khatri, Mr.

Siddhant Nagar and Mr.

Abhinav Mall, Advs.

Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr.

Aditya Choudhary, Advs.

Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along

with Mr. Parikshit Singh Bhati

and Ms. Lolita Crasta, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010484702025

+ W.P.(C) 10720/2025 and CM APPL. 44360/2025

LOTUS EXIM THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH. AJAY SINGH

GAUTAM .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr.

Deepanshu Saini, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC

along with Mr. Kautilya Birat,

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 4 of 25

GP and Mr. Tushar Hazrati, Mr.

Sanskar Gupta and Mr. Prakhar

Negi, Advs.

Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC

along with Ms. Malika Kumari,

Adv.

Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr.

Aditya Choudhary, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010484712025

+ W.P.(C) 10721/2025 and CM APPL. 44365/2025

MYSTIC EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr.

Deepanshu Saini, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC

along with Ms. Malika Kumari,

Adv.

Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr.

Aditya Choudhary, Advs.

Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC along

with Ms. Usha Jamnal and Ms.

Tanya, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

A. INTRODUCTION:

1. The present batch of 08 Petitions arises out of challenges laid

by five (05) exporters and three (03) suppliers, against the Show

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 5 of 25

Cause Notices (SCNs) dated 29.07.2022 and 26.02.2024, as well as

the consequential Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 05.02.2025, arising

out of proceedings under Central Goods and Services Act, 2017

1

and

Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017

2

. In addition, the Petitions

also raise a challenge to the Circular No.31/05/2018-GST dated

09.02.2018

3

, as amended by Circular No. 169/01/2022-GST dated

12.03.2022

4

, Circular No. 239/33/2024-GST dated 04.12.2024

5

,

inasmuch as the the amended provisions thereof lay down the manner

of determining the Common Adjudicating Authority in respect of

SCNs issued to multiple noticees by the Directorate General of Goods

and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI).

2. Although the present Petitions raise questions on merits as well

as on the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority who passed the

impugned OIO, this Court, by way of its Order dated 20.08.2025,

noticed the jurisdictional issue and directed the parties to file their

respective submissions on the said aspect. Accordingly, the final

hearing before this Bench was confined only to the issue of

jurisdiction, which is being dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs.

B. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND :

3. Before adverting to the facts leading to filing of the present

Petitions, the status/role of each of the Petitioners as per the

investigation is noticed hereunder for clarity and ease of reference:

1

hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2017’

2

hereinafter referred to as ‘IGST Act’

3

hereinafter referred to as ‘CN 31/2018’

4

hereinafter referred to as ‘CN 169/2022’

5

hereinafter referred to as CN 239/2024 and collectively as ‘Impugned Circular’

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 6 of 25

S. No. Case No. and corresponding

Petitioners

Status/Role

1. W.P.(C) 10607/2025

Katyani Exports through its Proprietor

Sh. Ajay Singh Gautam

6

Exporter/ End

User of L-2

suppliers

2. W.P.(C) 10609/2025

Vishnu Impex through its Partner Sh.

Ajay Singh Gautam

7

Exporter/End

User

3. W.P.(C) 10613/2025

Matrix Design Enterprises through its

Partner Sh. Umesh Chandra Mishra

8

L-1 Supplier

4. W.P.(C) 10614/2025

Divine Creations through its Partner Sh.

Ajay Singh Gautam

9

Exporter/ End

User of L-2

suppliers

5. W.P.(C) 10670/2025

Aura Creations through its Partner

Sh.Arun Gupta

10

Exporter/ End

User of L-2

suppliers

6. W.P.(C) 10718/2025

Etemad Cargo through its Surviving

Partner Sh. Umesh Chandra Mishra

11

L-1 Supplier

7. W.P.(C) 10720/2025

Lotus Exim through its Partner Sh.

Ajay Singh Gautam

12

Exporter/ End

User

6

hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.1’

7

hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.2’

8

hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.3’

9

hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.4’

10

hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.5’

11

hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.6’

12

hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.7’

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 7 of 25

8. W.P.(C) 10721/2025

Mystic Exim Private Limited

13

L-1 Supplier

4. Pithily put, the genesis of the present proceedings lies in

intelligence received by the DGGI, Gurugram Zonal Unit, indicating

the involvement of various exporter firms across India in a large-scale

fraudulent IGST racket. Pursuant thereto, a joint operation was

conducted, during which two exporter firms, namely, Petitioner Nos.2

and 7, were identified and taken up for investigation to ascertain the

genuineness of purchases reflected in their returns.

5. Further, the investigation, on tracing the inward supply chain of

the said exporter firms, ultimately culminated in the passing of

impugned SCN and OIO, whereby the Petitioners have been fastened

with liability towards the benefit availed by way of an alleged

fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Modus Operandi of the fraud

6. As per findings recorded by the Adjudicatory Authority, the

IGST fraud operated through a three-layer chain of fake invoicing,

without any actual movement of goods. At the bottom of the chain, 18

non-existent entities, characterised as L-2 suppliers, issued goods-less

invoices to a set of L-1 Suppliers, thereby enabling the L-1 firms to

falsely claim ITC on purchases that never actually took place. These

L-1 firms, also found to be non-existent at their declared addresses, in

turn passed on the same fraudulent credit further up the chain by

issuing their own goods-less invoices to exporter/end-user firms.

13

hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.8’

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 8 of 25

7. Upon receipt of such invoices, the end-user firms availed and

utilised such credit to discharge their tax liability and, more

significantly, to claim IGST refunds on exports. During the course of

the investigation, it was further found that the entire chain was

controlled by two individuals, namely Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta

(allegedly controlling the L-1 Suppliers) and Mr. Ajay Singh Gautam

(allegedly controlling the exporter/end-user firms) who used to

generate and route invoices between entities under their respective

control without any genuine underlying transaction, with the help of a

common transporter who was engaged across the chain to lend a

semblance of actual movement of goods.

Role of the Petitioners

8. Insofar as the Petitioners are concerned, it was found that

Petitioner Nos.2 and 7, being controlled by Mr. Ajay Singh Gautam,

acted as ‘End Users’ in the aforesaid chain and availed the benefit of

fraudulent/inadmissible ITC through common L-1 Suppliers, namely

Petitioner Nos.3, 6 and 8 amongst others, who issued goods-

less/fictitious sale invoices to the Petitioner Nos.2 and 7.

9. Further, the Petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, also controlled by Mr.

Ajay Singh Gautam, acted as parallel end-user entities and availed

fraudulent ITC directly on the strength of goods-less invoices issued

by the L-2 suppliers, without any intervention of L-1 Suppliers.

Following such discovery, statements under Section 70 of Act of 2017

were recorded and it was revealed that the entire fraudulent chain,

comprising both the exporter/end-user firms and the L-1 Suppliers,

was controlled solely by Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ajay

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 9 of 25

Singh Gautam.

Proceedings arising out of Act of 2017 and IGST Act

10. On the strength of the aforesaid findings, the Impugned SCN

was issued under Section 74(1) of the Act of 2017 to as many as 146

noticees, including the Petitioners herein and their respective

proprietors/partners/directors/controllers, invoking the extended

period of limitation on the ground of alleged fraud and wilful

suppression of facts, and proposing recovery of the wrongly

availed/passed-on ITC, along with applicable interest and penalty.

11. Upon adjudication, the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi

by way of the impugned OIO, confirmed the demand of ITC along

with interest under Section 74(1) read with Section 50 of the Act of

2017 against the ‘End User’ firms; confirmed demand, interest and

penalty under Sections 74(1) and 122(1) of the Act of 2017 against the

‘L-1 Supplier’ firms; and further imposed penalty under Sections

74(1), 122(1) and 122(3) of the Act of 2017 upon the individual

proprietors/partners/directors/controllers of the said firms, including

Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ajay Singh Gautam.

12. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners instead of filing Appeals,

have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking our indulgence.

13. As noted at paragraph No.2 of this judgment, we shall now

proceed to examine the issue of jurisdiction agitated by the Petitioners

herein.

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 10 of 25

C. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES :

14. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners have made the

following submissions:

14.1 Reference has been made to CN 169/2022 and 239/2024,

to argue that the amendments made by way of these circulars in

the CN 31/2018, in particular under paragraph Nos.7.1 and 7.2,

merely provide for a procedure of adjudication of a common

SCN by a single Additional/Joint Commissioner, and do not

assign the function to any particular officer. Making reference to

the Impugned Circular, it has further been argued that the same

neither recites the source of statutory power, nor do they record

approval of Board under Section 168(2) of the Act of 2017.

14.2 Further, reference has been made to Notification

No.2/2022-Central Tax dated 11.03.2022

14

, to argue that the

insertion of paragraph No.3A and Table V, merely confers a

power upon a class and makes no assignment qua any particular

assessee, and gap between the two, is fulfilled only by the

Impugned Circular through the ‘highest demand’ criterion,

amounting, in substance, to jurisdiction being conferred by a

Circular, contrary to the Sections 3, 5 and 167 of the Act of 2017.

In regard to the said Circular, it has also been argued that the

same was not put before the GST Council for ratification, thereby

violating Section 6(1) of the Haryana GST Act, 2017.

14.3 Relying upon Sections 2(91), 3, 5(3) and 167 of the Act

14

hereinafter referred to as ‘NN 2/2022’

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 11 of 25

of 2017, it has been argued that the assignment/transfer of

functions of a proper officer can only be effectuated by way of a

notification, which is then laid before the Parliament in

accordance with Section 166 of the Act of 2017. Whereas a

Circular is merely confined to securing uniformity in

implementation under Section 168(1) of the Act of 2017, in the

nature of a clarification and cannot be a vehicle for such

assignment. Reliance in this regard is placed on Commissioner

of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries

15

,

BMG Informatics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

16

and Union of

India v. Bharat Forge Ltd.

17

.

14.4 Reliance is also placed on Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v.

Jayaswals Neco Ltd.

18

and Shree Gouri Shankar Jute Mills

Ltd. v. Union of India

19

, to contend that the definite article ‘the’

in ‘the proper officer/the Commissioner’ denotes a specifically

identified officer, and Table II of Notification No. 2/2017-CT

dated 19.06.2017

20

has already identified such officer for the

Petitioners and such identification cannot be altered by way of a

circular.

14.5 It is contended that the selection criterion of ‘highest

amount of demand’ is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution, with no mention under the Act of 2017. The

Impugned Circular provides no guidance on clubbing noticees,

15

[2008] 17 STT 103 (SC)

16

2021 SCC OnLine Gau 2570

17

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1018

18

(2001) 3 SCC 609

19

(2012) 286 ELT 652

20

hereinafter referred to as ‘NN 2/2017

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 12 of 25

allowing the DGGI to determine the adjudicating/appellate

authorities, Tribunal Bench, and even the jurisdictional High

Court, despite no nexus of an assessee with that State. This

criterion is argued to be lacking any intelligible differentia or

rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Reliance in

this regard has been placed on Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji

Jadeja v. State of Gujarat

21

to argue that an exercise of power by

an authority not vested with it is void.

14.6 Lastly, it is contended that the Petitioners having their

place of business in Haryana are governed by Sections 107, 109

and 112 of the Haryana GST Act, 2017, since no pan-India

Commissioner (Appeals) has been notified and Circular

No.250/07/2025-GST dated 24.06.2025

22

itself admits that the

CN 239/2024 did not address review, revision or appeals.

Reliance in this regard has been placed on Pr. Commissioner of

Income Tax-1 v. ABC Papers Ltd.

23

15. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Respondents have

made the following submissions:

15.1 At the outset, learned counsel placing reliance upon

Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication

DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North

24

raised a preliminary objection to

the maintainability of the present Petitions, in view of the

availability of an alternative statutory remedy of Appeal.

21

(1995) 5 SCC 302

22

hereinafter referred to as ‘CN 250/2025’

23

[2022] 289 Taxman 150 (SC)

24

W.P.(C) 4853/2025

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 13 of 25

15.2 Responding to the argument raised by the Petitioner that

no pan-India jurisdiction has been identified, it has been argued

that such jurisdiction was conferred by NN 2/2017 and not by

way of the Impugned Circular. Further, Table III confers co-

extensive territorial jurisdiction on Commissioners (Appeals) and

specified officers, while Table V, as amended by NN-02/2022,

empowers specified Additional/Joint Commissioners, including

the Principal Commissioner, Delhi North, to adjudicate DGGI

notices under Section 74 of the Act of 2017 on a pan-India basis.

15.3 It has been argued that the Impugned Circular neither

confers nor expands jurisdiction. It only provides an

administrative mechanism for selecting from officers already

vested with pan-India jurisdiction, a Common Adjudicating

Authority based on the noticee having the highest demand.

15.4 Highlighting the role of CN 31/2018, as amended by CN

239/2024, it is argued that the aforesaid Circulars merely

provides an administrative mechanism for common adjudication

where a SCN covers multiple noticees across Commissionerates,

by selecting the jurisdiction of the noticee having the highest

demand. It does not confer any fresh jurisdiction.

15.5 It is argued that CN 250/2025 clarifies that the Appeals

against the OIO lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) having

territorial jurisdiction over the Principal

Commissioner/Commissioner under whom the Common

Adjudicating Authority is posted. Accordingly, where the

Common Adjudicating Authority is posted under Principal

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 14 of 25

Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals-I), Delhi has appellate

jurisdiction.

15.6 Further, reference is also made to CN 250/2025, to argue

that it only clarifies that the Appeals against Orders of the

Common Adjudicating Authority lie before the Commissioner

(Appeals) having territorial jurisdiction over the Principal

Commissioner/Commissioner under whom the Common

Adjudicating Authority is posted. Since the Common

Adjudicating Authority here is under Principal Commissioner,

Delhi North, Commissioner (Appeals-I), Delhi has jurisdiction.

15.7 Lastly, it is the case of the Respondents that a conjoint

reading of the Notifications and the Impugned Circular

establishes valid adjudicatory and appellate jurisdiction.

D. ANALYSIS AND REASONING :

16. Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and

with their able assistance perused the material on record along with

the written submissions and judgments relied upon.

The Statutory Scheme

17. Before proceeding to the examination of the validity of

Impugned Circular, we first notice the provisions of the Act of 2017

under which a notification, on the one hand, and a circular, on the

other, are issued, since it is this interplay of these provisions that lies

at the heart of the controversy. The relevant provisions are produced

hereunder:

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 15 of 25

2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(4) “Adjuicatory Authority” means any authority, appointed or

authorised to pass any order or decision under this Act, but does not

include Central Board or Indirect Taxes and Customs, the

Revisional Authority, the Authority for Advance Ruling, the

Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, the Appellate Authority ,

the Appellate Tribunal and the Authority referred to in sub-section

(2) of Section 171;

(91) “proper officer” in relation to any function to be performed

under this Act, means the Commissioner or the officer of the central

tax who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board;

3. Officers under this Act.—The Government shall, by notification,

appoint the following classes of officers for the purposes of this Act,

namely:—

(a) Principal Chief Commissioners of Central Tax or Principal

Directors General of Central Tax,

(b) Chief Commissioners of Central Tax or Directors General of

Central Tax,

(c) Principal Commissioners of Central Tax or Principal

Additional Directors General of Central Tax,

(d) Commissioners of Central Tax or Additional Directors General

of Central Tax,

(e) Additional Commissioners of Central Tax or Additional

Directors of Central Tax,

(f) Joint Commissioners of Central Tax or Joint Directors of

Central Tax,

(g) Deputy Commissioners of Central Tax or Deputy Directors of

Central Tax,

(h) Assistant Commissioners of Central Tax or Assistant Directors

of Central Tax, and

(i) any other class of officers as it may deem fit:

Provided that the officers appointed under the Central Excise

Act, 1944(1 of 1944.) shall be deemed to be the officers appointed

under the provisions of this Act.

5. Powers of officers.—(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations

as the Board may impose, an officer of central tax may exercise the

powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under

this Act.

(3) The Commissioner may, subject to such conditions and limitations

as may be specified in this behalf by him, delegate his powers to any

other officer who is subordinate to him.

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 16 of 25

166. Laying of rules, regulations and notifications.—Every rule

made by the Government, every regulation made by the Board and

every notification issued by the Government under this Act, shall be

laid, as soon as may be after it is made or issued, before each House

of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days

which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive

sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following

the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in

making any modification in the rule or regulation or in the

notification, as the case may be, or both Houses agree that the rule or

regulation or the notification should not be made, the rule or

regulation or notification, as the case may be, shall thereafter have

effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may

be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be

without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under

that rule or regulation or notification, as the case may be.

167. Delegation of powers.—The Commissioner may, by notification,

direct that subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the

notification, any power exercisable by any authority or officer under

this Act may be exercisable also by another authority or officer as

may be specified in such notification.

168. Power to issue instructions or directions.—(1) The Board may,

if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of

uniformity in the implementation of this Act, issue such orders,

instructions or directions to the central tax officers as it may deem fit,

and thereupon all such officers and all other persons employed in the

implementation of this Act shall observe and follow such orders,

instructions or directions.

(2) The Commissioner specified in clause (91) of Section 2,

subsection (3) of Section 5, clause (b) of sub-section (9) of Section 25,

sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 35, sub-section (1) of Section 37, [* *

*] sub-section (6) of Section 39, [Section 44], subsections (4) and (5) of

Section 52,] [sub-section (1) of Section 143, except the second proviso

thereof], [* * *], clause (l) of sub-section (3) of Section 158 and Section

167 shall mean a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board

and such Commissioner or Joint Secretary shall exercise the powers

specified in the said sections with the approval of the Board.”

18. While defining Adjudicatory Authority under Section 2(4) the

legislature has included any authority appointed or authorized to pass

any order under this Act except a few of officials posted on certain

specific posts/office. A perusal of the Section 2(91) of the Act of

2017, makes it evident that the definition of ‘proper officer’ provided

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 17 of 25

thereunder is a function-specific power, contemplating an act of

assignment by the Commissioner in Board. It is pertinent to note that

this provision does not, by itself, prescribe the instrument by which

such assignment is to be made.

19. However, this aforesaid gap pertaining to the instrument for

such an assignment is answered by Sections 3 and 5 of the Act of

2017. While Section 3 enumerates the classes of officers, Section 5(3)

empowers the Commissioner to delegate his powers, subject to such

conditions and limitations as may be specified, to any other officer

subordinate to him.

20. Further, Section 167 of the Act of 2017 empowers the

Commissioner to direct, by way of notification, that any function

under the Act of 2017 may be performed by such officer as may be

specified therein. Meaning thereby, it confers upon the Commissioner

the power to direct any authority or officer to exercise any powers

conferred under the Act of 2017. These provisions, when read

together, make a notification the statutory vehicle for creating a class

of officers, for vesting that class with a function, and for transferring a

function from one class of officer to another.

21. Furthermore, Section 166 of the Act of 2017 lends texture to the

aforestated scheme, insofar as every notification issued under the Act

is required to be laid before each House of Parliament, thereby

subjecting the exercise of this power to a measure of legislative

oversight that a mere administrative instruction does not attract. This

distinction is not a matter of form alone; it reflects a deliberate

legislative choice as to the mode in which jurisdiction-affecting

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 18 of 25

decisions are to be made and scrutinized.

22. However, Section 168 of Act of 2017 stands on a different

footing altogether. Sub-section (1) empowers the Board to issue

orders, instructions or directions to Central Tax officers to ensure

uniformity in the implementation of the Act, which such officers are

required to follow. Sub-section (2) further requires that, in respect of

specified functions, including those under Sections 5(3) and 167 of

Act of 2017, the powers of the Commissioner be exercised by the

Board itself or with its approval. Thus, Section 168 does not

independently confer, transfer or assign jurisdiction. Its role is

administrative and interpretative, intended to ensure uniformity in the

exercise of an existing jurisdiction, and not to create or confer such

jurisdiction.

23. It is at this stage that the maxim generalia specialibus non

derogant becomes relevant, which provides that a general provision

cannot override a special provision governing the same field, unless

the statute expressly or necessarily so requires. Thus, Section 168(1),

being a general power to secure uniformity, cannot override the

specific mode of conferring jurisdiction prescribed under Sections 3,

5(3) and 167 of the Act of 2017. At the same time, it may be used to

administratively operationalise a jurisdiction validly conferred by

notification. It is with this framework in mind that we now turn to

examine the Notifications and the Impugned Circular said to have

been issued in the present matter.

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 19 of 25

The Notifications: NN 2/2017 and NN 2/2022

24. NN 2/2017, issued under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act of 2017, is

the principal notification assigning territorial jurisdiction to Central

Tax officers across the country. Table II thereof correlates specified

Commissionerate with the officers competent to exercise powers

under the Act of 2017 within the prescribed pecuniary limits, thereby

identifying the officer ordinarily competent to adjudicate a SCN

issued to an assessee within a particular Commissionerate.

25. In turn, NN 2/2022, inserted paragraph No.3A and Table V into

NN 2/2017, to specifically address the SCNs issued by the DGGI. It

confers pan-India jurisdiction on the Additional/Joint Commissioners

specified therein to adjudicate such notices, notwithstanding the

territorial limits under Table II. However, NN 2/2022 does not specify

which officer, among those vested with pan-India jurisdiction, should

adjudicate a composite SCN involving noticees across different

Commissionerates. It is this residual, administrative gap, and not the

existence of jurisdiction itself, that the Impugned Circular intended to

address.

The Impugned Circular: Its function and effect

26. At the outset, we may note that the Impugned Circular does not

intend to create or confer any fresh jurisdiction as opposed to the

aforesaid notifications. Instead, its function in its own text and in

particular paragraph Nos.7.1 and 7.2 thereof, provides that where a

composite SCN is issued to multiple noticees falling within the

territorial jurisdiction of different Additional or Joint Commissioners,

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 20 of 25

the SCN shall be adjudicated by the officer having jurisdiction over

the noticee against whom the highest amount of demand has been

raised.

27. On a plain reading, the Impugned Circular does not claim to

appoint any officer, nor does it extend any officer’s jurisdiction

beyond what NN 2/2022 already confers, as well as it also does not

intend to vest adjudicatory power in any officer not already

comprehended within the class identified by Table V. Its operative

content is confined to selecting, by an objective and uniformly applied

criterion, one officer from among several who are already and equally

competent to adjudicate.

28. Thus, the Impugned Circular merely operates as an

administrative allocation-of-business direction and not as an

instrument conferring jurisdiction. While the NN-2/2017 and NN-

2/2022 determine who may adjudicate, the Impugned Circular

determines which of the competent officers shall adjudicate a

particular composite SCN.

Examination of the Petitioners’ Contentions

29. Learned counsel during the course of submission, argued that

CN 169/2022 and CN 239/2024, neither recite the source of statutory

power nor record the approval of the Board under Section 168(2) of

Act of 2017. However, we are unable to accept this as a ground to

invalidate the Impugned Circular. The validity of an administrative

instrument depends on whether the competent authority had the

requisite power and duly exercised it, not merely on the recital of its

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 21 of 25

source. The Petitioners have placed no material to show that the

Impugned Circular was issued without such authority or approval.

Therefore, the absence of a recital is, at best, a drafting infirmity and

not a jurisdictional defect.

30. Further, it was also argued that NN 2/2022 merely confers

jurisdiction on a class of officers and does not identify the officer for

each assessee and the Impugned Circular, by applying the highest

demand criterion, thereby confers jurisdiction. We are unable to

accept this contention. The statute does not require a notification

under Sections 3 and 5(3) to identify an officer for every possible

combination of noticees. NN 2/2022 identifies the competent class and

assigns the function; the Circular merely allocates the composite SCN

among such officers and does not confer jurisdiction afresh.

31. Moreover, the contention that NN-2/2022 required GST

Council ratification under Section 6(1) of the Haryana GST Act, 2017

is also untenable. Since, no material or statutory provision has been

shown to establish such a requirement. Moreover, Section 6(1)

concerns cross-empowerment for enforcement and does not make

such ratification a condition for the validity of a notification issued

under Sections 3 and 5(3) of Act of 2017.

32. Lastly, it was contended that the Petitioners, having their place

of business in Haryana, are governed by Sections 107, 109 and 112 of

the Haryana GST Act, 2017; that no pan-India Commissioner

(Appeals) stands notified; and CN 250/2025 itself concedes that CN

239/2024 did not address the appellate mechanism, reliance being

placed on Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(Supra). We find that

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 22 of 25

this apprehension, though understandable, does not survive scrutiny of

the material on record.

33. The appellate forum is not created by CN 250/2025; it stands

already notified under Table III of NN 2/2017 for the

Commissionerate in which the Common Adjudicating Authority is

posted. CN 250/2025 merely clarifies the position. Thus, the principle

in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Supra) is not violated, as the

adjudicatory, appellate and Tribunal hierarchy remains within the

notified jurisdiction of the same Commissionerate. Any hardship

caused to an assessee by such arrangement, being incidental to the

pan-India scheme for composite notices, cannot by itself invalidate the

jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority.

34. In this regard, it is also relevant to note that, apart from the

challenge to the vires of the Impugned Circular, the Petitioners have

not shown any actual prejudice arising from the exercise of

jurisdiction by the Delhi-based Common Adjudicating Authority. No

plea or material has been placed to show that the Petitioners were

denied a proper opportunity of hearing, were unable to effectively

respond to the notice, or were treated less fairly than they would have

been by an officer in Haryana. The grievance is thus confined to the

forum and not to any substantive prejudice. While absence of

prejudice cannot cure a genuine jurisdictional defect, it is a relevant

circumstance where, as held above, the forum is otherwise lawfully

constituted.

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 23 of 25

Article 14 of the Constitution: highest demand criterion

35. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners argued that the

‘highest amount of demand’ criterion is arbitrary and offends Article

14 of the Constitution. However, in the considered view of this Court,

this criterion is objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable. It

bears a rational nexus with the legitimate object of ensuring a single

and consistent adjudication of what is, in substance, one cause of

action arising from one investigation. Moreover, it also avoids the

possibility of conflicting findings on the same set of facts by different

officers.

36. In this regard, a reliance was also placed on Anirudhsinhji

Karansinhji Jadeja(Supra), which is distinguishable. This decision

dealt with impermissible sub-delegation of statutory power to an

officer who had not been vested with such power. However, no such

infirmity arises in the present case. The officer issuing the composite

SCN exercises no discretion in choosing the Adjudicating Authority

but merely applies the criterion prescribed by the Board. Therefore,

there is, no sub-delegation, and the said decision has no application to

the present case.

The Preliminary Objection: Alternative Remedy

37. We may finally advert to the preliminary objection raised on

behalf of the Respondents, founded on Ambika Traders (Supra), to

the effect that the present Petitions are not maintainable in view of the

availability of an efficacious alternative remedy of Appeal under

Section 107 of the Act of 2017. It is well settled that the writ

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 24 of 25

jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where such

alternate remedy is available. However, as reiterated in Assistant

Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited

25

, the writ

court may intervene where the challenge concerns the very existence

of jurisdiction.

38. At the same time, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution is discretionary. In the present case, the Adjudicatory

Authority, has recorded a finding that the Petitioners indulged in

fraudulent transactions to usurp the Government Revenue. In such

circumstances and having regard to the availability of the statutory

appellate remedy, the exercise of jurisdiction by a Writ Court on

grounds pertaining to the merits of the adjudication would not be

warranted.

39. The present Petitions were, therefore, entertained only to

examine the jurisdictional foundation of the Impugned OIO. Having

held that the Common Adjudicating Authority derives jurisdiction

from a valid notification and the Impugned Circular is not vitiated by

the alleged defect, the basis for invoking the exception no longer

survives. However, the remaining grounds, including the merits of the

demand, evidentiary issues and alleged violation of principles of

natural justice, are appropriately left to be dealt by the statutory

Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017.

E. CONCLUSION:

40. For the foregoing reasons, the challenge to the jurisdiction of

25

(2022) 16 SCC 447

W.P,(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters Page 25 of 25

the Common Adjudicating Authority and to the vires of the Impugned

Circular fails, such jurisdiction being traceable to NN 2/2017 and NN

2/2022, validly issued under Sections 3 and 5(3) of the Act of 2017.

41. Accordingly, the present Petitions, are dismissed.

42. However, the Petitioners shall be at liberty to avail themselves

of the remedy of Appeal under Section 107 against the Impugned OIO

and raise all other contentions on merits, before the Appellate

Authority, who shall decide the matter on its own merits, uninfluenced

by any observation made in this judgment.

43. It shall be open to the Petitioner to file an application under

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of period during

which the present Petitions remained pending, which shall be

considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

44. With these observations, the present Petitions, along with all

pending applications, are disposed of.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2026

s.godara/hr