High Court of Delhi29 September 2026

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

For revenue

W.P.(C) NO. 10213 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner distributor of medicines challenged show cause notice and appropriation of amount deposited during audit on grounds of coercion, limitation, computation, and jurisdiction, since statutory adjudication had commenced and SCN did not finally determine liability, all objections including voluntariness of payment and other contentions could be raised before Adjudicating Authority and interference at SCN stage was unwarranted

Provisions considered

Section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 101(4), read with rule 142, of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication

Delhi High Court22 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST

Where registered person was issued adverse order in Form DRC-07 without being given personal hearing, statutory mandate required hearing either on request or whenever adverse decision was contemplated, such order passed without personal hearing was unsustainable and was set aside with directions for fresh decision after affording effective personal hearing

Allahabad High Court17 Sept 2026

For revenue

Rizvi Builders and Supplier v. State of U.P

Where assessee paid entire tax voluntarily after notice alleging evasion and without demur, acceptance of liability confirmed all terms and allegations in notice, thus assessee remained liable to equal penalty and interest as per Section 74, subsequent show cause notices only computed sums, and voluntary deposit did not absolve penalty or interest, so writ petition challenging demand was not tenable

Related rulings

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST

Rizvi Builders and Supplier v. State of U.P

Read the full analysis