This compilation indexes 12 court and tribunal rulings from January 2026 to August 2026 in which Section 62 — appearing across multiple statutes including the CGST/SGST Acts, the Income Tax Act, state excise and commercial tax legislation, and other applicable laws — was cited as a section engaged by the court or tribunal. The rulings span the Supreme Court of India, multiple High Courts (Rajasthan, Madras, Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, and Gauhati), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The compilation is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured starting point for further primary research.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference tool. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any course of action. Readers must verify all rulings against the full text of the original judgment and consult qualified advisers before relying on any material here.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

"Section 62" appears in several Indian statutes that are relevant to tax and commercial law practice. Under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and its state mirror legislation), Section 62 provides for "best judgment assessment" of taxpayers who fail to furnish returns — the proper officer may assess tax liability to the best of his judgment based on available material, subject to the taxpayer's right to file a valid return within a prescribed period to have the assessment withdrawn. Under the Income Tax Act, 1961, different sub-provisions address matters such as succession to business and the carry-forward of losses in that context. Section 62 also appears in state-specific legislation including the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (revision remedy), the Probate and Administration Act applicable in Jammu & Kashmir (probate petitions), and electricity regulatory frameworks — meaning the actual legal content of "Section 62" in any given ruling depends entirely on the statute under which the proceeding arises, and researchers must identify the correct parent statute before drawing any interpretive conclusions.

The 12 rulings

1. Seva Ram Dangi vs Union Of India

Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Date: 5 August 2026
Sections engaged: 20, 46, 62
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9136/2026) was filed by Seva Ram Dangi before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur against the Union of India, the State of Rajasthan, and the Assistant Commissioner, State GST, Rajsamand. Per the source preview, the petitioner's counsel referred to an order dated 03.04.2025 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6992/2025 (M/s Nain Construction Company versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.), and the court issued notice to the respondents at the stage captured in the preview. The dispositive outcome of the petition is not specified in the source data.

2. Manakkadu Suresh vs The Sub Registrar

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 22 July 2026
Sections engaged: 62, 63
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three writ petitions (W.P(MD) Nos. 20592, 20604 & 20612 of 2026) were filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash impugned refusal check slips (RFL/No.1 Joint Sub Registrar Thoothukudi/145/2026, 146/2026 and 144/2026 dated 17.06.2026) passed by the Sub-Registrar and to direct registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner on 17.06.2026. The Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department, T.R.O. No.1, Madurai, was arrayed as the second respondent. The dispositive outcome of the petitions is not specified in the source data.

3. Mahalaxmi Metal Works vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 20 July 2026
Sections engaged: 62
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 202792 of 2026, CNR: KAHC030076062026) was filed before the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari quashing an order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-LGSTO-525, Kalaburagi. Per the source preview, the court passed an oral order allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned order at Annexure-C dated 28.02.2026.

4. W/O Late Nagendra Nath Sharma vs R/O Patel Chowk

Bench: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 62
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (MA No. 85/2014) was filed before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, reserved on 02.07.2026 and decided on 08.07.2026. Per the source preview, the deceased appellant Nagendra Nath Sharma (represented through legal representatives) challenged the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (the Probate Court), arising from a petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 62 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1977 (Samvat) — the then applicable State Act. The dispositive outcome of the appeal is not specified in the source data.

5. M/S Sel Manufacturing Company Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 7 July 2026
Sections engaged: 46, 62
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WP No. 18226 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48850) was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner-company challenged various show-cause notices issued in Form GSTR-3A under Section 62 of the Central/MP Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 whereby an aggregate demand of Rs. 8,58,86,990/- towards tax, along with interest and penalty, was raised, and also challenged an order dated 24.04.2024 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled for non-filing of GST returns. The dispositive outcome is not specified in the source data.

6. Allamaprabhu Gurulingayya vs The Government Of India

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 24 June 2026
Sections engaged: 62
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 200836 of 2026, NC: 2026:KHC-K:4548) was filed before the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner sought writs of certiorari quashing orders dated 11.03.2024 and 10.10.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vijayapura-450 (Respondent No. 2), and a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to reconsider the petitioner's revocation application dated 24.07.2025. The dispositive outcome of the petition is not specified in the source data.

7. Dev Anand Bhatt,Haldwani vs Ddit/ADIT(Intl Tax) Lkn, Lucknow

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Date: 4 June 2026
Sections engaged: 10, 143(3), 144C(3), 250, 270, 270A, 270A(2), 60, 62, 74
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 764/LKW/2025) was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench "B", by the assessee Dev Anand Bhatt (PAN: ANOPB1987A) for Assessment Year 2019-20, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Noida, dated 30.09.2025. Per the source preview, the assessee challenged the sustaining of a penalty under the Act amounting to Rs. 8,47,596.00, with the primary ground being that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without adequately considering the facts and submissions of the appellant in relation to the underlying assessment. The dispositive outcome of the appeal is not specified in the source data.

8. Alpha Corp Development Private Limited vs Greater Noida Industrial Development

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 5 May 2026
Sections engaged: 62(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter (Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2023 and connected civil appeals) was heard before the Supreme Court of India in its civil appellate jurisdiction. Per the source preview, the appeals arose from a judgment dated 30.01.2023 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which disposed of three company appeals filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and set aside orders dated 05.04.2021, 08.06.2021, and 07.12.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bench III, New Delhi — the underlying proceedings relating to resolution plans submitted in insolvency proceedings. The dispositive outcome of the civil appeals is not specified in the source data.

9. Jindal Steel And Power Ltd vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 30 March 2026
Sections engaged: 62
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WPC No. 1927 of 2016, Neutral Citation No. 2026:CGHC:14839) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, with the order reserved on 19.12.2025 and delivered on 30.03.2026. Per the source preview, the petitioners were Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and Mr. Rajesh Agrawal, with the respondents being the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and successor companies of CSEB. The preview references technical requirements relating to minimum load conditions and assured offtake levels; the dispositive outcome of the petition is not specified in the source data.

10. Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 23 March 2026
Sections engaged: 62
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WP No. 4915 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24006) was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur challenging an order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-8) by which the licences of the petitioners were suspended. Per the source preview, the Additional Advocate General for the State pointed out that an alternative remedy of revision was available under Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, but — with the consent of all parties — the court heard the matter finally rather than relegating the petitioners to that statutory remedy. The dispositive outcome of the petition is not specified in the source data.

11. The Reserve Bank Employees vs The Principal Chief Commissioner Of

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 9 January 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 62
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 7708 of 2025) was filed before the Orissa High Court at Cuttack under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by The Reserve Bank Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited (a society registered under the Cooperative Society Act, 1962), arraying the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha Region, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar-1, and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar as respondents. The source preview is procedural and does not contain sufficient detail to characterise the substantive ground beyond the parties and forum; the dispositive outcome is not specified in the source data.

12. Page No.# 1/13 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 6 January 2026
Sections engaged: 62(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WP(C)/6496/2015, along with linked cases WP(C)/6594/2015 and WP(C)/6530/2015) was filed before the Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh), with the petitioner being M/s Parmeshwari Tea Company, Karbi-Anglong, Assam, and the respondents being the State of Assam, the Commissioner of Taxes, and the Superintendent of Taxes, Circle-01, Diphu Unit, Karbi-Anglong. The appeal was filed against the State in a finance and taxation matter; the source preview is primarily constituted by cause-title and party information, and the dispositive outcome is not specified in the source data.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Multi-statute breadth of "Section 62." Across these 12 rulings, the citation "Section 62" refers to provisions in at least four distinct parent statutes — the CGST/SGST Acts, state excise legislation, state commercial tax legislation, and other applicable laws including probate statutes. Researchers must always confirm the parent statute when using section-number-based search results.
Writ jurisdiction as the dominant forum. The majority of matters in this set were filed as writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before various High Courts, indicating that parties frequently bypass or challenge the adequacy of statutory remedy frameworks and approach constitutional courts directly — a pattern seen in cases 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11.
Alternative remedy arguments raised by the State. In at least one case in this set (case 10, Som Distilleries), the State explicitly raised the availability of a statutory revision remedy as a threshold objection to the writ petition, which the court noted before proceeding to hear the matter on merits with the consent of the parties. This reflects a recurring procedural tension in tax-related writ matters.
GST registration cancellation and best-judgment demand as a clustered issue. Cases 5 and 6 both involve writ challenges before Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh High Courts touching on commercial tax/GST proceedings, with case 5 specifically referencing GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns alongside a substantial demand raised under the relevant Section 62 provision.
Predominance of interim and notice-stage disposals. Several rulings in this set — including cases 1, 2, 6, and 11 — reflect early-stage procedural steps such as issuance of notice to respondents or admission of the petition, rather than final merits-based disposals. This limits the direct precedential value of these entries and underscores the importance of verifying whether a final order has been passed in each matter.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a starting-point index, not a substitute for reading the full text of each judgment. Every ruling listed above should be verified against the complete order as available on the official court portal (e.g., indiankanoon.org, the High Court's own judgment portal, or the ITAT's e-filing portal) before it is cited in any pleading, opinion, or advisory. In particular, researchers should confirm whether a final order has been passed in matters where the source preview reflects only a notice-stage or interim-stage disposal, as the outcome of the main petition may differ materially from the procedural order captured here.

Researchers should also check for appellate history: a High Court ruling may have been stayed, reversed, or affirmed by the Supreme Court, and an ITAT order may have been appealed to the relevant High Court. Similarly, CBDT instructions, circulars, or notifications issued after the date of a ruling may affect its practical applicability. Where the "Section 62" in a ruling refers to a GST statute, researchers should also check for any CBIC circulars that address the same procedural question.

Finally, because "Section 62" appears in multiple unrelated statutes, searches on section number alone will routinely retrieve cases from tax regimes, commercial law frameworks, and other legal domains that may be irrelevant to the researcher's specific question. Each case in this index has been listed with its actual parent-statute context as reflected in the source preview; however, researchers working on a specific statutory question should filter further by the relevant act before drawing conclusions about judicial trends or the state of the law.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 62 in Indian Tax & Commercial Law: 12 Court Rulings (2026)