The Delhi High Court has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a batch of petitions challenging GST proceedings and penalty orders, holding that objections relating to the competence and jurisdiction of GST officers can be raised before the statutory appellate authority.
The judgment is significant for taxpayers involved in GST investigations, particularly where the validity of proceedings is challenged on the ground that the officer issuing a show-cause notice was not the legally designated “proper officer” for the relevant function.
Background of the GST Dispute
The proceedings arose from a large-scale GST investigation concerning allegations of fake invoicing, issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods and wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The investigation covered approximately 629 entities, with the combined tax and penalty exposure allegedly running into several hundred crores of rupees.
The petitioners approached the Delhi High Court challenging, among other things, show-cause notices and penalty proceedings initiated under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
Their principal argument was that the officers who issued the notices did not possess the requisite statutory competence or assignment to exercise the relevant powers at the time the proceedings were initiated.
Challenge to Competence of GST Officers
The petitioners contended that the concerned officers had not been specifically assigned the relevant functions under Section 122 of the CGST Act when the show-cause notices were issued.
They further argued that a subsequent Circular dated October 27, 2025 could not retrospectively cure an alleged lack of jurisdiction existing when the notices were originally issued.
According to the petitioners, this was not merely a procedural irregularity but went to the root of the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the proceedings.
The Delhi High Court, however, did not accept that the issue represented a clear and obvious absence of jurisdiction warranting direct interference through a writ petition.
What Does “Proper Officer” Mean Under GST Law?
An important aspect of the judgment concerns the statutory meaning of the expression “proper officer.”
Section 2(91) of the CGST Act defines a proper officer in relation to a particular function as the Commissioner or the officer of the central tax assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board.
The Court observed that the expression “proper officer” is function-specific. Therefore, merely holding a particular designation or being an officer of central tax does not automatically confer authority to perform every function under the CGST Act.
At the same time, the assignment of statutory functions can take place through appropriate statutory and administrative instruments issued by the competent authorities under the CGST framework.
Role of Notifications and Subsequent Circular
The High Court examined the relevance of Notification Nos. 02/2017-Central Tax and 14/2017-Central Tax, under which officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) were invested with powers of central tax officers of corresponding rank.
The Court noted that determining the precise effect of these notifications, along with the subsequent Circular dated October 27, 2025, required an interpretation of the statutory scheme.
This included examining the relationship between proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act and consequential penalty proceedings under Section 122.
Accordingly, the Court found that the issue concerning the competence of the officers was not so obvious that it could be characterised as a patent or self-evident absence of jurisdiction.
Why the High Court Refused to Interfere Under Article 226
The availability of an alternative statutory remedy was an important consideration for the Court.
The petitioners had raised several other objections concerning the GST proceedings, including allegations relating to:
- Non-supply of relied-upon documents;
- Denial of an effective opportunity of personal hearing;
- Evidentiary deficiencies;
- Validity of the investigation and consequential proceedings; and
- Competence of the officers issuing the notices.
The Court considered that these issues required a detailed examination of the underlying facts, documents and records.
Such an exercise, according to the Court, was more appropriately undertaken by the statutory appellate authority rather than in writ proceedings.
The Court therefore declined to entertain the petitions and relegated the petitioners to the available statutory appellate remedy.
Key Takeaway for GST Taxpayers
The judgment does not mean that the competence of a GST officer can never be challenged.
Rather, it indicates that where the alleged lack of authority involves interpretation of statutory provisions, notifications, administrative assignments or the factual record, the High Court may decline to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an effective statutory appeal is available.
A taxpayer challenging GST proceedings should therefore carefully distinguish between:
- A clear and inherent lack of jurisdiction, which may justify constitutional intervention in appropriate circumstances; and
- A disputed question concerning assignment, competence, statutory interpretation or factual circumstances, which may ordinarily be examined through the prescribed appellate mechanism.
The decision reinforces the importance of exhausting the statutory remedies provided under GST law before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly where the dispute involves factual and evidentiary questions.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Rohit Garg v. Union of India provides an important clarification regarding challenges to the competence of GST officers.
Where the alleged jurisdictional defect is not apparent on the face of the record and requires interpretation of GST notifications, circulars and statutory provisions, the issue may not qualify as a patent absence of jurisdiction.
For taxpayers facing GST investigations, show-cause notices or penalty orders, the judgment highlights the need to raise all jurisdictional, procedural and factual objections comprehensively before the appropriate statutory appellate authority.
At the same time, the ruling leaves open the possibility of constitutional intervention in cases involving a genuinely apparent and fundamental lack of jurisdiction.
Case Details
Case Title: Rohit Garg v. Union of India
Case Number: W.P.(C) 8829/2026
Court: Delhi High Court
Issue: Competence of GST officers and maintainability of writ proceedings
Relevant Provisions: Sections 2(91), 3, 5, 73, 74 and 122 of the CGST Act; Article 226 of the Constitution