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.
39 rulings found
Delhi High Court
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
Delhi High Court
Where DGGI initiated proceedings for ITC fraud against multiple noticees including petitioner while a separate proceeding was initiated by State GST officer against petitioner for denial of ITC due to non-payment of tax by supplier, bar on parallel proceedings did not apply as proceedings addressed distinct subject matters; mere commonality in petitioner, period, or transactions was insufficient to constitute identity of subject matter. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, subsequent conclusion of DGGI proceedings did not extinguish independent demand raised by State GST officer on separate statutory grounds; absence of recovery in DGGI proceedings did not retrospectively invalidate separate proceedings concerning short payment and ITC ineligibility. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, where petitioner was only a co-noticee in DGGI proceedings and no penalty, tax, or interest was imposed on petitioner in that matter, proceedings by State GST officer for ame act would not attract bar against penalty, as protection applies only if prior penalty on petitioner for same act is established and shown
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 assessee registered under CGST and SGST claimed ITC on invoices from a supplier and State invoked Section 73 while Central authorities invoked Section 74, Central action based on distinct intelligence regarding bogus transactions was not barred by Section 6(2)(b) as two proceedings concerned different subject matter based on distinct investigative material; commonality of assessee and period or ITC amount was insufficient when assessee had different GSTINs
Allahabad High Court
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
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
Where GST-registered partnership challenged demand raised on grounds of non-consideration of reply to SCN involving allegations of suppression, since full opportunity to contest was provided and disputes pertained to merits involving record appraisal, remedy lay with appellate authority and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted, thus writ petition was not maintainable GST: Where petitioner was issued a consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years for alleged fraud under audit, statutory provisions did not require separate notices per year and allowed composite notices, especially where patterns over years were relevant, so mere consolidation of demand periods did not render such notice jurisdictionally defective or warrant writ interference, though limitation objections for any year required fact-based appellate examination
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
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under section 74 on grounds that prior dropping of GST registration cancellation barred subsequent adjudication for tax or ITC involving fraud, since cancellation proceedings and section 74 adjudication operate in distinct spheres, such challenge was misconceived and writ was not maintainable, leaving petitioner with opportunity to file a reply before adjudication
Kerala High Court
Where a petitioner claimed denial of opportunity to be heard in assessment proceedings due to internal disputes, health issues and entrustment of portal credentials to counsel, but hearing notices were repeatedly uploaded on GST portal and not acted upon, valid service of notice stood established and responsibility to monitor portal rested with petitioner, so writ petition challenging orders was not maintainable
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
Rajasthan High Court
Where sole proprietorship discontinued on death of proprietor and adjudication orders for tax, interest and penalty were passed against deceased without notice or hearing to legal heir, section 93(1)(b) imposed recovery from estate through legal representative, subject to procedural requirements of proper notice, opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order under section 75. GST: Where adjudication order and tax demand were issued against a deceased proprietor without notice or hearing to legal heir and without a reasoned speaking order, assessment proceedings stood vitiated for non-compliance with statutory requirements and orders were quashed, allowing for fresh proceedings after giving hearing to legal heir
Delhi High Court
Where assessee challenged ex parte order confirming penalty for wrongful ITC availed on ground of non-receipt of SCN and asserted cessation of business with registration cancellation application, since disputed facts on service of notice and registration subsistence existed, writ remedy was not warranted and appellate remedy was to be pursued with writ-pendency period excluded for limitation purposes
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
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
Delhi High Court
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
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
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
Orissa High Court
Where assessee challenged section 74 proceedings alleging non-service of notices uploaded on GST portal, service through common portal was valid under section 169 and writ petition was liable to be dismissed as records established participation and dispelled claim of ignorance