Nishant Jagaty v. Superintendent, CGST and Central Excise
The Superintendent had no jurisdiction over the extended-period matter. Consent or acquiescence could not supply authority, and an appeal was unnecessary to correct that defect.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-09-26
The Superintendent had no jurisdiction over the extended-period matter. Consent or acquiescence could not supply authority, and an appeal was unnecessary to correct that defect. 29 October 2024 order set aside and writ disposed of without costs.
What happened
A Superintendent adjudicated a service-tax case invoking extended limitation; applicable departmental allocation reserved that class of case for a Deputy or Assistant Commissioner even below the ordinary pecuniary ceiling.
Questions before the court
- Did participation cure an officer’s lack of subject-matter authority?
Why the court ruled this way
The Superintendent had no jurisdiction over the extended-period matter. Consent or acquiescence could not supply authority, and an appeal was unnecessary to correct that defect.
Controlling point
The Superintendent had no jurisdiction over the extended-period matter. Consent or acquiescence could not supply authority, and an appeal was unnecessary to correct that defect.
Order and next steps
29 October 2024 order set aside and writ disposed of without costs.
Practical implications
The operative result is case-specific: 29 October 2024 order set aside and writ disposed of without costs. Apply it within the court’s stated limit: The tax merits and other taxpayer objections were expressly not considered.
Limits of this ruling
- The tax merits and other taxpayer objections were expressly not considered.
Law and judgment source
- Service-tax adjudicator jurisdiction
- Extended-period tax demand
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established. A three-byte UTF-8 transport prefix preceding the PDF signature was removed to make the unchanged PDF content open in standard readers. A three-byte UTF-8 transport prefix before the PDF signature was removed; internal PDF bytes were unchanged.
Source checked: 2026-09-26 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 16–22 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.