The Rajasthan High Court has applied the principles of judicial discipline and res integra to quash a fresh show cause notice issued by a GST authority merely weeks after the Division Bench of the same court had set aside an earlier SCN on the identical classification issue. The ruling, in M/s Gyankeer Tobacco Products Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST Commissionerate, Udaipur (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18093/2026, decided 06.08.2026), is a stark reminder that subordinate authorities cannot circumvent binding judicial orders by issuing fresh proceedings on the same facts.
The earlier history is important. Gyankeer Tobacco Products manufactures a product described as "Papad Khar Lime" — a mixture of lime and tobacco with aroma and menthol — which had been classified as unmanufactured tobacco under the Advance Ruling dated 01.06.2022 and confirmed in Section 104 proceedings in July 2023. The Revenue, however, issued show cause notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act seeking to classify the product as manufactured tobacco. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed these SCNs on 16.04.2026 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18915/2024, finding that the Revenue's reliance on "fresh findings" about machine usage and addition of aroma and menthol was unsustainable — these very factors had already been considered by the AAR and in the Section 104 proceedings, both of which had held in the petitioner's favour. With no new material to justify invoking the fraud/suppression jurisdictional threshold of Section 74, the SCNs were without jurisdiction.
The fresh SCN challenged in this case was issued on 04.05.2026 — barely eighteen days after the Division Bench's earlier judgment. Paragraph 28 of the new SCN itself disclosed the motivation: it stated that the acceptance of the High Court order of 16.04.2026 was "in the process of review by the competent authority" and that the fresh SCN was being issued for the period April 2024 to January 2026 "to safeguard revenue." In other words, the Revenue had issued a new SCN on the same classification question while the earlier HC order was being reviewed — and before any appellate challenge to it had succeeded.
The Division Bench found this impermissible without needing to examine the merits afresh. The issue stood conclusively adjudicated by the earlier Division Bench ruling. Subordinate authorities are bound by High Court orders unless they are stayed by a competent court. Since no stay had been obtained, the competent authority was obligated to comply with the 16.04.2026 ruling — not to neutralise its effect by issuing a new SCN on the same facts. The Supreme Court principle in Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation was applied: officers who disagree with an appellate order are not entitled to ignore it merely because they find it unacceptable. The proper course is to challenge the order through the prescribed appellate hierarchy. The fresh SCN was accordingly quashed.
-2026-juristway.com-2152-HC(Rajasthan)-GST | High Court of Rajasthan | 06.08.2026