Common Adjudicating Authority Jurisdiction for DGGI Notices Valid — ‘Highest Demand’ Criterion Under Circular Not Arbitrary, Derives From Notification: Delhi HC Upholds Framework in Batch of 8 Petitions

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of the Common Adjudicating Authority framework under which DGGI-issued composite show cause notices involving multiple noticees across different Commissionerates are adjudicated by a single officer, holding that the jurisdiction derives from Notification No. 2/2017-CT and Notification No. 2/2022-CT validly issued under Sections 3 and 5(3) of the CGST Act, and that the Circular prescribing the ‘highest amount of demand’ criterion merely provides an administrative mechanism for selecting among officers already vested with pan-India jurisdiction. The ruling by Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain in W.P.(C) 10607/2025 and connected matters (Katyani Exports and others, decided 16.09.2026) arose from a batch of 8 petitions filed by 5 exporters and 3 suppliers implicated in an alleged large-scale fraudulent IGST refund racket.

The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North on multiple grounds: that the Circulars (CN 31/2018, CN 169/2022, CN 239/2024) neither recite the statutory source of power nor record Board approval; that Notification No. 2/2022 merely confers jurisdiction on a class and the Circular effectively confers jurisdiction by selecting the specific officer through the highest-demand criterion; that the ‘highest demand’ criterion is arbitrary under Article 14; and that the appellate forum for Haryana-based petitioners was not validly constituted.

The court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the statutory architecture, drawing a clear distinction between the notification route (Sections 3, 5(3), 166, 167) and the circular route (Section 168). Notifications are the statutory vehicle for creating officer classes, vesting functions and transferring jurisdiction, subject to Parliamentary laying under Section 166. Circulars under Section 168(1) are administrative and interpretive, intended to ensure uniformity, and cannot override the specific mode of conferring jurisdiction. In this framework, Notification No. 2/2022 confers pan-India jurisdiction on specified Additional/Joint Commissioners to adjudicate DGGI notices; the Circular merely allocates the composite SCN among such equally competent officers using an objective, quantifiable criterion that bears a rational nexus with the object of ensuring consistent adjudication. The ‘highest demand’ criterion was held not arbitrary under Article 14. On the appellate forum, the court found that CN 250/2025 merely clarifies that appeals lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) having territorial jurisdiction over the Principal Commissioner under whom the Common Adjudicating Authority is posted — a forum already notified under Table III of NN 2/2017. The petitions were dismissed but with liberty to file appeals under Section 107 with exclusion of time.

- 2026-juristway.com-2507-HC(Delhi)-GST  |  High Court of Delhi  |  W.P.(C) 10607/2025 and batch  |  16.09.2026