Case laws · TaxKatha

Delhi High Court31 Aug 2026

For revenue

Supra Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner

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 Court31 Aug 2026

For revenue

Supra Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner

Delhi High Court12 Aug 2026

For revenue

Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India

Where taxpayer challenged administrative transfer of audit file from Audit Wing to Anti-Evasion Wing within same Commissionerate citing authority and audit timeline grounds, such transfer was administrative in nature, not barred by statute, and interference was unwarranted as petitioner could raise all related objections before Adjudicating Authority, especially since transfer followed repeated non- compliance by petitioner

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenue

Fastenex (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer

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.…

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenue

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Where petitioner company was merged and after NCLT's approval, unutilized ITC and liabilities were transferred and department parallelly initiated audit-based and scrutiny-based proceedings for same period, audit and scrutiny notices could be issued separately as each arose from distinct processes; suppression of facts being disclosed as was required for invoking section 74, limitation period would be extended and, thus, SCNs could not be challenged filing writ petitions

Every ruling, in plain sight.

Supra Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner

Supra Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner

Siemens Healthcare (P). Ltd. v. Union of India

Fastenex (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)