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 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
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where registered person deposited self-assessed tax belatedly and interest was demanded by authority without initiation of section 73 proceedings, waiver of interest under section 128A was not available since circular permitted waiver only where section 73 was invoked, and self-assessed tax interest liability under section 50 read with section 75(12) was directly recoverable with no scope for waiver in such cases. GST: Where petitioner sought waiver of interest for delayed deposit of self-assessed tax citing discrimination under Article 14, since benefit under waiver scheme applied only to disputed tax arising from section 73 proceedings and not to self-assessed tax, classification between disputed and self-assessed tax was valid, denial of waiver to petitioner was justified and Article 14 challenge was not sustainable
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.…
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
Allahabad High Court
Where adjudication order under Section 73 was challenged for being non- speaking and for non-consideration of reply regarding mismatch between GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A and GSTR-9, since authority considered assessee's reconciliation reply and hearing, and burden to reconcile ITC claimed was not discharged by mere chart without explanation, writ remedy was not maintainable and statutory appeal could be pursued
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
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
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
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
Madras High Court
Where company failed to pay self-assessed liability reported in GSTR-1 and went into liquidation, and recovery from company was not possible, joint and several liability was fastened on directors during default unless they proved absence of negligence; so attachment of director’s bank account by garnishee process for recovery of company dues was justified and did not warrant interference at this stage. GST: Where partnership firm’s bank accounts were attached to recover arrears of a company under director liability because a partner was also director of defaulting company at relevant period, subsequent changes in partnership were irrelevant and close family ties among promoters and partners justified action, so firm’s challenge to garnishee communications was not sustainable and writ was dismissed GST: Where one company's bank account was attached for recovery of another company's arrears, given common promoters and directorship swaps among family members across entities and evidence suggesting incorporation of petitioner aimed at evasion, lifting of corporate veil was warranted and interference with garnishee attachment was unwarranted, leading to dismissal of writ petitions
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged demand order alleging non- communication and denial of hearing after winding up of business, but physical hearing opportunity had been granted and GSTIN continued to remain valid, failure to reply or appear amounted to negligence, and plea of breach of natural justice was untenable as no violation thereof was made out
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged SCN and OIO on ground that a gap of six-months between SCN and OIO was not maintained and also there was violation of earlier liberty to file reply, maintaining a gap of six-month period was merely directory; since repeated opportunities for reply and hearing were given, and OIO was passed within limitation period, challenge on account of not maintaining time gap did not vitiate proceedings. GST: Where petitioner alleged denial of effective hearing as order was issued within five days of last hearing, since records showed multiple notices, repeated reminders, a videographed hearing, and supply of seized records, there was substantial compliance with statutory hearing requirements; no prejudice being caused from a shorter gap, making statutory appeal instead of filing writ was proper remedy. GST: Where petitioner challenged OIO and SCN by filing writ petition despite Supreme Court's order relegating to statutory appeal with pre-deposit, since no exceptional ground was established, adequate opportunity was given, OIO was within limitation, and time-limit plea was not raised earlier, writ petition was not entertainable; lliberty was to be given to pursue statutory appellate remedy
Gujarat High Court
Where assessee engaged in scrap trading faced proceedings for alleged fraudulent ITC and challenged adequacy of show cause notice and opportunity on grounds of incomplete notice and misdescription, no breach of natural justice was established as adequate opportunity was given, SCN errors were typographical, and relevant relied upon documents for two periods were available, thus writ petition was to be rejected
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner obtained GST registration at premise owned by wife on strength of a registered GPA but registration was suspended and cancelled on complaint filed by wife, statutory authorities were required to adjudicate registration issue as dispute over authority between spouses did not oust statutory mechanism; since section 107 provided effective appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked
Madras High Court
Where petitioner engaged in sale of rock boulders was found to have under-declared turnover when compared to high seigniorage fees during relevant periods, and escaped turnover was estimated using National Standard Method, issuance of notice and extended limitation under Section 74 was justified based on prima facie material, rendering challenge to limitation and procedure meritless
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged show cause notice under Article 226, citing lack of jurisdiction and bona fide GST-paid purchases, and department alleged transactions with non-existent suppliers and ineligible ITC, interference was declined as only a notice existed and statutory adjudication remedy was available; petitioner was directed to reply and authority to adjudicate after hearing parties
Madras High Court
Where assessee availed and utilized excess ITC over GSTR-2A figures and failed to pay reverse charge tax on foreign agency commissions, such acts constituted wrongful availment and suppression with intent to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation under Section 74 GST: Orders passed in November 2024 under Section 73 for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were within limitation, as statutory extensions governed computation of time, and limitation issue stood concluded by binding precedent
Madras High Court
Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, liability to pay interest for belated tax payment arose under determination and recovery framework, and obligation to pay interest subsisted irrespective of subsequent payment or willingness to pay in instalments, rendering recovery of such interest under determination and recovery provisions fully justified. GST: Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, interest on delayed payment remained payable under determination provisions and reference to extended period in DRC-01 and DRC-07 would not invalidate proceedings; matter required reconsideration of petitioner’s reply in light of business nature for a fresh order