High Court of Delhi9 July 2026

Sunil Chauhan Prop of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North

For revenue

W.P.(C) NO. 8412 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner, a proprietor engaged in trading agro-chemical products, was issued SCN for mis-declaration, undervaluation and clandestine clearance leading to demand of tax, interest and penalties, proper officer adjudicating tax liability from SCN was also competent to impose all consequential penalties in same adjudication as statute does not require separate proceedings, showing no jurisdictional error

Provisions considered

Section 74, read with section 122 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - 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

GSTAT Agra17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jitendra Kumar v. R.V. Brick Field

Where survey at brick kilns revealed excess or unaccounted bricks and coal not recorded in books and persons present failed to produce documents, initiation of confiscation proceedings with penalty and fine under section 130 was impermissible, as proper procedure required tax determination as if supplied under section 35(6) read with sections 73 and 74, rendering confiscation unsustainable GST: Where excess or unaccounted stock found at respondents' brick kilns led to confiscation and penalty orders, and Commissioner (Appeals) quashed both confiscation and penalty due to lack of legal basis, revenue's appeals confined only to fine could not be sustained in absence of a surviving confiscation, rendering such appeals meritless and not maintainable

GSTAT Bengaluru15 Sept 2026

For assessee

Conduent Business Services India LLP v. Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru East Gst Commissionerate

Where an assessee made pre-SCN payment of tax and interest for excess ITC and irregular TRAN-1 credit found in audit and there was no evidence of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression with intent, penalty under fraud provisions was not sustainable as mere audit detection does not amount to suppression, and voluntary payment warranted immunity from penalty under general provisions

Supreme Court18 Aug 2026

For revenue

Marginmart Infosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner CGST

Where penalty proceedings for issuance of invoices without actual supply and wrongful ITC were initiated after an investigation found recipient non-existent, and statutory appeal under section 107 was available to challenge both jurisdiction and procedural grounds, writ petition under Article 226 was not entertained, and assessee was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, leaving all questions open for consideration by Appellate Authority; instant Court found no error in impugned order passed by High Court, SLP was to be disposed of

Related rulings

GSTAT Agra17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Sunil Chauhan Prop of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Sunil Chauhan Prop of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Jitendra Kumar v. R.V. Brick Field

Conduent Business Services India LLP v. Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru East Gst Commissionerate

Marginmart Infosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner CGST

Read the full analysis