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.
10 rulings found
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
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
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 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
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
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged IGST demand on export supplies under Notification 41/2017-IGST (Rate) alleging violation of natural justice and non-consideration of documents, since appellate authority duly considered materials but found insufficient invoice-wise correlation, and no breach of natural justice, jurisdictional error, or mala fides was established, writ remedy could not be entertained and statutory appeal before GSTAT was proper course
Meghalaya High Court
Where BOT (Annuity) road construction concessionaire challenged SCN and OIO alleging that GST demand on annuity post launch commercial operation of project and sought writ on grounds including jurisdiction and constitutional invalidity, since core disputes related to classification, exemption and composite supply, determination of which required determination of mixed question of facts and law and no grave jurisdictional or natural justice breaches were shown, writ petition was not maintainable and statutory appeal would be an efficacious alternate remedy. GST: Where petitioner, executing BOT (Annuity) Jorabat–Shillong NH-40 project, challenged DGGI and CGST officers’ jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate demand for GST on annuity, both Additional Director-DGGI and Additional Commissioner of CGST-Shillong were Proper Officers appointed and empowered under relevant notifications and statute to act under Sections 73 and 74; so jurisdictional challenge to their actions would fail