Delhi High Court
For revenue
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
25 rulings found
Delhi High Court
Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner’s ITC in electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A, requested adjustment of blocked credit for pre-deposit against confirmed IGST demand was declined, since blocking does not constitute payment or appropriation towards an adjudicated demand and debit cannot occur until restriction is removed or modified, thus only unblocked ECL credit may be used for pre-deposit, not mandatorily cash ledger
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee challenged Section 73 proceedings alleging non-service of statutory notice for wrongful ITC, but record showed service of a detailed demand- cum-show-cause notice for the relevant period, contention of absence of notice was unfounded and proceeding was not without jurisdiction, with any residual grievances to be adjudicated in statutory appeal. GST: Where assessee challenged unsigned and allegedly defective Form GST DRC- 07 electronic summary regarding period and quantum, such electronic defects alone did not affect jurisdiction of adjudication order, as summary cannot substitute main adjudication, and any inconsistency among notice, order, and summary must be tested on facts and can be redressed through statutory appeal. GST: Where assessee challenged imposition of interest and penalty as exceeding show-cause notice for period July 2017 to March 2018 invoking section 75(7), since determination of whether order exceeded notice required conjoint examination of notice and order, mere assertion did not warrant writ interference and remedy could be pursued before appellate authority. GST: Where assessee alleged denial of hearing during demand adjudication for July 2017 to March 2018 but records showed service of demand-cum-show-cause and no reply from assessee nor any material indicating exclusion from adjudicatory process, non-compliance with Section 75 could be addressed in statutory appeal and no ground for extraordinary interference was established.…
Madras High Court
Where petitioner's electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A upon finding of bill trading by supplier, and petitioner sought to use blocked ITC for appellate pre-deposit under Section 49(4) read with Section 107, use of credit ledger for pre-deposit is ordinarily permitted but is barred when credit stands blocked, as Section 49(4) does not confer absolute right to such use during blockage
Delhi High Court
Where directors and managing directors were subjected to penalty under section 122(1) for alleged fraudulent availment and utilization of ITC by their companies, and applicability of section 122(1) to a person who was not a taxable person was pending consideration before Supreme Court, writ petition was not to be entertained as statutory appeal under section 107 was available, thus, petitioners were relegated to appellate remedy
Rajasthan High Court
Where tax, interest and penalty were confirmed by Order-in-Original and rectification was rejected without granting hearing, but statutory appeal remedy before Appellate Authority existed, writ petition challenging impugned orders and seeking unblocking was not entertained, and petitioner was directed to avail appellate remedy, with assurance that appeal would be considered on merits without limitation objection
Bombay High Court
Where assessee challenged order-in-original citing non-supply of relied-upon documents despite records showing proper service via registered and alternate emails, and no specific missing document or resultant prejudice was pleaded, with statutory appeal remedy available and no exceptional circumstances shown, writ under Article 226 was not maintainable and only statutory appellate route could be pursued
Delhi High Court
Where CGST authorities initiated proceedings and issued show cause notice before SGST authorities on same subject matter for overlapping periods, statutory bar on parallel proceedings under section 6(2)(b) was not attracted, and jurisdictional objection could not be a ground to bypass statutory appeal remedy, making writ interference unwarranted. GST: Where goods were seized without invoices during search and initial proceedings under section 67(7) were concluded with order dropping proceedings, a subsequent show cause notice under section 74, culminating in an order after investigation and reply, constituted a distinct proceeding, not a parallel adjudication of same subject matter, thus both orders were legally sustainable. GST: Where petitioner challenged proceedings under writ jurisdiction despite availability of undisputed statutory appeal under section 107, and no jurisdictional infirmity or violation of natural justice was found on objections raised under section 6(2)(b), writ remedy was declined as no ground existed to override efficacious appellate remedy, relegating petitioner to appeal process
Meghalaya High Court
Where a firm challenged demand and assessment alleging bias and natural justice violation due to seizure-based assessment and involvement of same officer in inspection and appeal, with issues on proper officer jurisdiction, reliance on seized estimates, residuary rate, and reconciliation, statutory appellate remedy under GSTAT existed, no actual bias or illegality was shown, thus, writ petitioner was to be dismissed as disputed facts were fit for GSTAT consideration
Gauhati High Court
Where DGGI officer issued a consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice covering multiple financial years under CGST regime and petitioners challenged permissibility of such consolidation after not filing a reply, since law as per Tata Projects Ltd. permits consolidated notices and adjudication for multiple periods, writ challenge to such consolidated notice was not maintainable. GST: Where petitioners received consolidated show cause notice for tax or ITC not involving fraud and failed to reply before seeking writ remedy nearly a year later, since initiation under general or fraud-based provisions is fact-specific and determination of fraud requires factual examination, writ jurisdiction was not maintainable at notice stage and parties must pursue statutory adjudication and appeals
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner challenged SCN and order-in-original alleging tax not paid and fraud-related demand under CGST after being heard and afforded detailed adjudication, existence of effective statutory appellate remedy before Appellate Authority meant writ could not be entertained, and questions of fact or competing statutory provisions including period-specific applicability were to be decided in statutory appeal
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessees' appeals under Section 107 were dismissed as time-barred and sought condonation beyond statutory limits invoking Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, since GST is a special fiscal statute prescribing specific limitation with restricted condonation, Section 5 stood excluded by necessary implication and appeals beyond prescribed period could not be entertained
Gauhati High Court
Where Proper Officer issued a consolidated show cause notice and passed a single order covering multiple financial years for confirming tax, interest and penalty, issuance of such consolidated notice and order was within jurisdiction and authority, and challenge to competence on this ground was not sustainable with merits of the order left open for statutory appeal
Patna High Court
Challenge to ex parte GST demand failed where SCN and reminders were issued through portal and registered e-mail, containing specific ITC mismatch figures; petitioner neither categorically denied e-mail receipt nor disclosed correct GSTR-2A ITC, and bare allegations of non-service and denial of hearing lacked credibility. GST: Writ challenging ex parte DRC-07 demand was not maintainable where petitioner failed to avail statutory appeal, voluntarily undertook to pay dues and issued post-dated cheques to secure de-attachment, later dishonoured; having benefited from de-attachment without protest or duress, petitioner was estopped and lacked bona fides to invoke Article 226
Delhi High Court
Where assessee, after participating in audit and adjudication and filing detailed replies with documents, challenged an order-in-original via writ on grounds of non- consideration of reply and failure to seek additional documents, since adequate opportunity was provided and alternative appellate remedy under section 107 existed, no exceptional circumstance justified writ interference and complaint pertained to merits not natural justice
Delhi High Court
Where assessee applied for refund of unutilized ITC while SCN proposed partial rejection and OIO partially sanctioned refund and rejected balance while OIA set aside OIO to extent of wrongful rejection without mandating unconditional release or foreclosing further examination; since a subsequent order rejected refund, proper course was statutory appeal to test reasons and scope and effect of OIA GST: Where petitioner challenged rejection of refund of unutilized ITC, statutory appeal remedy being available, writ interference was not warranted; liberty was granted to pursue statutory appeal
Gujarat High Court
Where State GST officer intercepted consignment in transit, found no quantity discrepancy but initiated penalty proceedings alleging reuse of documents, State GST officers were competent to act as proper officers under IGST Act where State Commissioner’s order designated them under State GST law; no separate Central notification was required. GST: Orders passed by State GST proper officers while exercising IGST powers were appealable before the State appellate authority by virtue of cross-empowerment; as an efficacious statutory remedy existed against confiscation and penalty orders, invocation of writ jurisdiction without exhausting appeal was impermissible
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner challenged order confirming fake ITC demand involving same SCN and identical modus operandi as connected entity, with both operating from same address and similar allegations, statutory appeal remedy was available, making writ jurisdiction not maintainable, and writ petition was rightly rejected in favour of statutory appellate process
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered textile manufacturer received multiple Form GSTR-3A notices for non-filing of GSTR-3B and all notices were uploaded on common portal with no response filed, uploading constituted valid statutory service and plea for physical service was untenable, so cancellation of registration for non-filing could not be challenged on grounds of lack of natural justice. GST: Where GST-registered textile manufacturer, after registration cancellation and receipt of statutory notices, failed to pursue available remedies for revocation or file statutory appeal within limitation or satisfy pre-deposit requirements, invocation of writ jurisdiction was impermissible as statutory remedies were not exhausted and limitation bar or pre-deposit requirement could not justify bypassing these remedies, leading to dismissal of petition
Telangana High Court
As discrepancy between order-in-original and DRC-07 summary was rectified during writ proceedings, petitioner was relegated to statutory appeal; liberty was granted to file appeal with delay-condonation application and pre-deposit within two weeks, raising all factual and legal grounds, subject to appellate authority’s satisfaction on delay