Daily Intelligence Capsule — 16 September 2026
Latest EditionLatest Edition — Wednesday, 16 September 2026GST
DGGI's Section 122 Jurisdiction Upheld in a ₹227 Crore, 629-Entity Batch
Delhi HC upholds DGGI officers' authority to issue Section 122 GST penalty notices and reaffirms the pre-deposit transition rule from Gaurav Jain/Arun Kumar Jain, in a ₹227.72 crore, 629-entity batch of writ petitions.
Read the briefingGST
A Demand Cannot Survive on an Appellate Order CESTAT Has Already Reversed
Delhi HC quashes a ₹76.72 lakh demand because the department relied on a Commissioner (Appeals) order that CESTAT had already set aside — Welspring Universal.
Read: A Demand Cannot Survive on an Appellate Order CESTAT Has Already ReversedCase Law Watch
Himachal Pradesh HC on Refund-Interest Disputes; Three ITAT Benches Agree on the Section 148A(b) Seven-Day Rule
Paramount Agrotech: GST refund-interest disputes must first go to the statutory authority, not the writ court. ITAT Nagpur, Cuttack and Ranchi each quash a reassessment this week for a Section 148A(b) notice giving fewer than seven clear days to reply.
Read: Himachal Pradesh HC on Refund-Interest Disputes; Three ITAT Benches Agree on the Section 148A(b) Seven-Day RuleDid You Know
Two 2017-Vintage Notifications Still Power DGGI's Section 122 Authority
Notification No. 14/2017-CT and Notification No. 02/2017-CT already supplied DGGI's Section 122 penalty jurisdiction from 2017 onward — October 2025's clarifying Circular only restated it.
Read: Two 2017-Vintage Notifications Still Power DGGI's Section 122 AuthorityWhat's the Penalty?
A Section 148A(b) notice gives your client five days instead of seven...
Does a short Section 148A(b) notice period, on its own, bring down an entire reassessment — or can a substantively correct addition survive it?
Read: A Section 148A(b) notice gives your client five days instead of seven...