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.
76 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
Calcutta High Court
Where tax, interest and penalty demands were raised via SCN and order uploaded only on portal without direct intimation and reply was filed but no personal hearing was afforded before passing ex parte order, principles of natural justice were breached, requiring the adjudication to be quashed and matter reconsidered after granting effective hearing
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered assessee dealing in handloom sarees was subjected to a single composite summary assessment order covering multiple tax periods, such an order was not sustainable since a composite assessment across years is invalid, and fresh proceedings must be initiated separately for each assessment year
Kerala High Court
Where authorities issued a composite show cause notice covering multiple assessment years and tax periods by combining distinct adjudications into one proceeding, such composite notice lacked legal sanction as per binding precedents and was therefore quashed, with liberty granted to issue separate notices for each assessment year or period
Rajasthan High Court
Where real estate developer received show cause notice and order uploaded on portal without any digital or physical signature and recovery initiated, such unsigned documents lacked statutory authentication under Rule 26(3) and constituted a jurisdictional defect, rendering SCN, order, recovery notice and consequent bank attachment invalid and liable to be quashed
Kerala High Court
Where consolidated show cause notice, order, and DRC-01A were issued by authorities covering multiple years in a single composite proceeding, prior rulings establish such proceedings as impermissible, necessitating separate year-wise notices, resulting in quashing of composite SCN, order, and DRC-01A with liberty to initiate fresh year-wise proceedings within revised limitation period
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order confirmed tax, interest and penalty exceeding amount proposed in show-cause notice for April 2017 to March 2018, demand could not exceed SCN amount; matter remanded for fresh response by treating impugned order as SCN
Calcutta High Court
Where order under Section 73 was passed post summary SCN without affording assessee personal hearing and without communicating date, time or venue, requirement of Section 75(4) was infringed, thus order was to be set aside with direction to adjudicate afresh upon deposit of 10 per cent of disputed tax amount as writ was filed belatedly
Calcutta High Court
Where summary SCN and ex parte order were uploaded only under 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab without separate intimation resulting in delayed reply, and personal hearing was not granted despite section 75(4) mandate, cumulative procedural infirmities invalidated adjudication and required reconsideration of reply after affording personal hearing and passing a fresh reasoned order
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner received a composite show cause notice covering multiple financial years and challenged its legality, as separate notices were required for each assessment year and prior Division Bench decisions confirmed that such composite notices were unsustainable, same was to be quashed with liberty to authorities to issue separate notices for each relevant year
Kerala High Court
Where revenue issued a composite show cause notice covering multiple years to assessee for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice was impermissible under GST law, and therefore was quashed, with liberty to issue separate year-wise notices for each relevant period
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged adjudication order for July 2017 to March 2018 and no opportunity of hearing was granted despite show cause notice indicating an adverse decision, such order was unsustainable for breach of mandatory hearing requirement under statutory scheme, and matter required remand for fresh decision after granting personal hearing with attachment order quashed
Kerala High Court
Where a single composite order covered multiple financial years for adjudication of demand not involving fraud, such composite order was invalid in light of Division Bench rulings, consequently order was quashed with liberty granted to issue separate notices for each relevant financial year
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order for tax determination was passed after fixing personal hearing before expiry of reply period, with order uploaded incorrectly on portal and full demand realized by bank attachment, opportunity to respond was not afforded in compliance with statutory requirement, thus adjudication was set aside and consequential actions quashed pending proper reply and personal hearing
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.…
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
Karnataka High Court
Where same officer conducted audit, issued show cause notice, and passed adjudication order for tax demand not involving fraud, such adjudication violated principles of natural justice, thus, adjudication order was to be quashed and proceedings were to recommence before a different officer from stage of reply to show cause notice with due opportunity of hearing
Kerala High Court
Where a composite show cause notice and adjudication order covering multiple financial years was issued to petitioner for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice is unsustainable in law, thus both the notice and subsequent orders founded on it were quashed, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant period being preserved
Kerala High Court
Where a composite show cause notice and consequential order were issued covering multiple financial years for demand of tax or ITC not involving fraud, such composite proceedings were impermissible as per binding Division Bench decisions and both notice and order were to be quashed with liberty to authorities to issue separate notices for each year
Kerala High Court
Where consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years was issued in respect of tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice was invalid as per precedent disallowing clubbing distinct periods, warranting quashing of consolidated notice and granting liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year