JEST GST - 457

OCTOBER 21, 2026

When the Revenue Discovers Natural Justice

By Vijay Kumar

HAVE you heard these phrases?

- uberrima fides

- suppressio veri

- suggestio falsi

More about them-as they make a dramatic appearance in today's story.

Get ready for a courtroom thriller featuring a sprinting taxpayer, a vacation-bench surprise, a disputed hearing, a tell-all pen drive, and three Latin maxims that overshadowed a GST bail dispute.

Look Who's Talking About Natural Justice!

In this recent case in the Supreme Court (Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Mohammed Kamran - 2026-TIOL-52-SC-GST, decided on October 16, 2026), the appellant is the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, challenging a bail granted by the Karnataka High Court to a GST assessee.

In our story, the appellant means the Senior Intelligence Officer and the respondent means the taxpayer.

The primary grievance of our Senior Intelligence Officer was that the principles of natural justice had been brazenly violated in the High Court!

Ever heard the Government complaining that it was denied natural justice?

Taxpayers have complained about replies disappearing into procedural black holes and hearing notices arriving conveniently after the adjudication order.

For the DGGI, not ordinarily accused of excessive sentimental attachment to Natural Justice, suddenly discovering its virtues was a moment of delightful irony.

Thirteen years ago, I wrote about an Assistant Commissioner whose Show Cause Notice stated that the assessee had violated the Principles of Natural Justice in my DDT 2195 (23.09.2013)!

The Great Escape

Our Senior Intelligence Officer lodged a private complaint before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru against the respondent for CGST offences, alleging the classic GST cocktail: issuing paper invoices without goods, availing fraudulent input tax credit, and falsifying documents to cause a loss of precisely Rs. 43,08,22,936/- (admire the Department's ability to calculate alleged fraud down to the last six rupees; it lends an air of mathematical infallibility to the proceedings, even if the show-cause notice eventually flops).

Earlier, when sleuths searched his residences, the respondent was alleged to have offered "stiff resistance" and did what any fitness-conscious businessman would do when faced with visiting tax officers; he fled from the spot! A separate FIR was promptly registered for this cardio workout. (Evading tax is an offence, and evading the taxman gets a bonus FIR!)

Boxing Day Bail

Arrested on September 16, 2025, the respondent moved the High Court after his bail pleas were rejected by the trial and Sessions courts. On December 12, 2025, the High Court gave the appellant two weeks to file objections.

Though the High Court's winter vacation began on December 20, 2025, while everyone else was enjoying Christmas plum cake, the respondent's counsel moved a memo, got the petition listed on December 26, 2025 (Boxing Day!), and walked out with bail!

Furious, the Senior Intelligence Officer contended before the Supreme Court that:

- DGGI was not afforded any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to present its case.

- The High Court erroneously recorded the Special Public Prosecutor/Senior Standing Counsel as having appeared for the appellant when he was not even present in the country, let alone in the Court!

- An uninstructed panel counsel's adjournment request was rejected, and bail was granted hurriedly during the winter vacation.

Multi-Forum Multitasking & The Pen Drive Bombshell

Appearing for the Senior Intelligence Officer, the Additional Solicitor General argued that the High Court ought not to have heard the petition when an adjournment was sought and exposed the taxpayer's multi-forum multitasking.

The taxpayer's counsel countered that the DGGI counsel "faintly" sought an adjournment before arguing on merits, the Department miserably failed to file objections in two weeks, and since nine months had elapsed in a Magistrate-triable offence carrying a maximum five-year sentence, the Supreme Court shouldn't interfere.

The Supreme Court issued notice since the issue between the parties had a bearing on the twin questions of judicial propriety and uberrima fides [utmost good faith].

To settle the "Did he argue or not?" dispute, the respondent dropped a technological bombshell: a pen drive containing the video recording and transcript of the High Court hearing! (In the pen-drive era, one can no longer plead that one merely cleared one's throat twice when the video replay shows one roaring like Cicero!)

Latin Gems in Action

Watching the courtroom cinema, the Supreme Court found that the DGGI panel counsel did advance some submissions on merits, but only as an officer of the Court after his adjournment request was rejected.

What really bothered the Supreme Court, however, was how the taxpayer treated litigation as a multi-window service counter:

Clearly, while the Revenue slept through deadlines, the taxpayer sprinted through forums.

The Supreme Court observed:

"Not only has he abused the process of law, he has suppressed material facts from the High Court. There is clear lack of uberrima fides [utmost good faith], which is the foundation for invoking the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction for grant of bail."

Agreeing with the ASG that the respondent was "crafty and disingenuous," the Court highlighted two major issues:

1. Simultaneously chasing bail in the Sessions Court, Writ Court, and High Court was blatant forum shopping. Given the short time and vacation, neither the DGGI nor its counsel knew all the facts on December 26. And then came the stinging indictment:

"Of utmost importance is that the respondent too did not (disclose the facts)! He indulged in suppressio veri [suppression of the truth] and suggestio falsi [suggestion of a falsehood]."

By hiding his fourth Sessions Court rejection and the Writ Court's refusal (suppressio veri ), while presenting his case as deserving urgent holiday relief without those inconvenient disclosures (suggestio falsi), he kept the courts in the dark.

2. Snatching a vacation listing on December 26 without adequate notice to the appellant - when the earlier Bench had not directed vacation listing-was a clear attempt to "steal a march by even misleading the Court".

The Verdict: Scolded in Latin, Saved by the GST Council?

Remarking that it would have taken a very strict view had the arrest been for a heinous offence, the Supreme Court:

- Set aside the disposal of the criminal petition and revived it before the Single Judge for fresh consideration.

- Converted the respondent's regular bail into interim bail on earlier terms until further orders.

- Allowed the Senior Intelligence Officer two weeks peremptorily to finally emerge from procedural hibernation and file a counter-affidavit, with a week thereafter for the respondent's rejoinder.

Now look at the delicious irony of how the calendar played out:

First, after all the sound and fury, after engaging the ASG, and after three stern Latin maxims from the Supreme Court, the taxpayer is still out on bail!

Second, look at the comic timing! Arguments in the Supreme Court concluded on October 5, 2026, and the order was reserved. Just three days later-on October 8, 2026, while the judgment was still in the judicial oven-the 57th GST Council decided to completely abolish arrests under GST! And on October 16, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its order asking the High Court to decide the bail petition afresh!

Imagine the scene when the matter returns to the Karnataka High Court. Our Senior Intelligence Officer may solemnly file his counter-affidavit urging custody. The taxpayer's counsel may respond with equal solemnity asking whether the Department can pray for custody when the GST Council has decided to bury the arrest provisions altogether.

Of course, Council recommendations are not legislation. But timing, as every litigator knows, can be almost as powerful as law.

Vacation Arithmetic

Before parting, the Court offered High Courts a lesson in vacation arithmetic: when a Bench directs listing "two weeks hence" and the period expires during a vacation, the Registry should compute the two weeks excluding the vacation period-unless the Bench specifies a vacation date or directs listing before a Vacation Bench.

The Curious Case of the Autonomous Senior Intelligence Officer

As a parting thought, a small procedural doubt tickles the mind: Is the Senior Intelligence Officer competent to file an appeal in the Supreme Court in his own designation on behalf of the Union of India, especially when the Additional Solicitor General-who represents the Union of India-appeared for our appellant Senior Intelligence Officer?

Ordinarily, the 'Union of India' should be the appellant. To an untrained procedural eye, this produces the charming impression that the Senior Intelligence Officer has acquired a constitutional personality of his own... sufficiently autonomous to march into the Supreme Court and challenge a High Court order under his official designation.

In any case, the Supreme Court admitted the appeal and delivered a reportable judgment on it.

Moral

So, the moral of this festive tale is clear. When approaching a Court, carry abundant uberrima fides with you, leave suppressio veri and suggestio falsi safely at home, avoid treating judicial forums as interchangeable destinations, and remember that even the Revenue occasionally discovers a passionate commitment to Natural Justice when the shoe is on the other foot.