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.
7 rulings found
Delhi High Court
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 Court
Where department searched law firm premises under statutory authorization and seized client documents and CPU from advocate’s cabin, advocate-client privilege was held not to bar search as cabin formed part of authorized premises and privilege protected confidential client communications belonging to client rather than location, while prima facie material justified inquiry into advocate’s conduct, consequently writ petition was to be dismissed
Gauhati High Court
Where search was conducted at business premises of partnership firm under Section 67 based on FORM GST INS-01 authorization, plea that search was vitiated for want of authorization failed as valid authorization existed, statute did not require prior disclosure of reasons to taxable person, and adjudicating authority was to verify validity of authorization and records during adjudication. GST: Where department raised demand alleging misdeclaration or suppression after search and investigation found incriminating documents, absence of scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 did not invalidate consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice since search under Section 67 and investigation provided foundation, but if any demand rests solely on return scrutiny, relevant statutory compliance must be ensured and can be examined during adjudication. GST: Where petitioner received consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice invoking Section 74(1) for certain years and Section 74A(1) for another, objection to consolidation was untenable as no bar exists against a multi-year notice, but authority must determine liability and applicability of each provision separately for each financial year with attention to limitation and statutory requirements. GST: Where SCN invoked penalty provisions under both sections 74 or 74A and 122 in respect of same act or omission, such reference in notice does not violate bar against double penalty under section 75(13) at proposal stage, but authorities must ensure no double penalty is actually imposed during adjudication and imposition in compliance with statutory prohibition.…
Delhi High Court
Section 67 covered search, seizure and provisional release while Section 74A addressed determination of tax liability, both provisions operated in distinct fields and provisional release under Section 67(6) was not dependent on proceedings under Section 74A(9)
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
Gujarat High Court
Where unregistered coaching institute admitted cash suppression and liability during search and voluntarily paid tax dues post-admission, with no contemporaneous complaint or evidence of coercion, such payment cannot be termed coercive recovery and allegation raised after two years is an afterthought not warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. GST: Where after search petitioner deposited quantified dues voluntarily via DRC-03, issuance of DRC-04 was only an acknowledgment with no prescribed timeline, and payment with interest and penalty concluded proceedings, so later refund claim and coercion narratives were afterthoughts, making rejection of refund plea and delayed DRC-04 issuance legally justified. GST: Where unregistered coaching institute deposited tax, interest and penalty voluntarily during search after quantification based on seized evidence of student count and fees, refund claim was rejected since refund arises only if tax was not payable or paid in excess, and no illegality was found in rejection, making cited circular and case laws inapplicable
Madras High Court
Where assessees challenged demands raised invoking extended-period on ground that there was lack of foundational facts in show cause notices, in view of fact that prior communications like scrutiny, audit or inspection had already conveyed requisite reasons and facts, invocation of extended-period was valid; absence of reasons in show cause notice alone was not fatal if jurisdictional facts were discernible from earlier communications or on record, subject to prima facie satisfaction under section 74. GST: Where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is not established, proceedings initiated under Section 74 need not fail but may be converted into Section 73 proceedings; such conversion preserves valid tax demands while excluding consequences dependent on extended-period ingredients. GST: Where central authorities issued consolidated show cause notices spanning multiple years and parties disputed permissibility of such composite notices, consolidated SCNs covering multiple periods were deemed valid, as normal and extended-period demands were not tax-period specific and statute did not prohibit common SCNs for multiple periods GST: Where assessee, on being inspected for multiple years and issued DRC-01A and DRC-01 alleging fraud, non-cooperation, documentation lapses and failures to provide financials, challenged show cause notices as pre-determined, since GST scheme allows communication of reasons throughout proceedings and detailed SCN was intended to enable assessee for rebuttal, writ challenge was not maintainable and merits had to be adjudicated in their own course.…