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.
26 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee challenged demand order under section 74 alleging non-service of ASMT- 10 and show cause notice but failed to explain delay in approaching court after knowledge of proceedings and did not avail statutory appeal, writ petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches
Madras High Court
Where legal heir of deceased proprietor whose business was discontinued and GST registration cancelled was issued demand for tax, interest and penalty for non-filing of returns relating to period prior to death, recovery could proceed against legal heir under liability provisions, with adjudication permissible post-death, but liability restricted only to extent of inherited estate
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
Madras High Court
Where petitioner challenged demand orders confirming tax, interest and penalty after issuing SCNs citing discrepancies between GSTR-9 and Form 26AS and GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B and alleging willful suppression under Section 74 while petitioner's replies failed to effectively rebut those allegations, invocation of Section 74 for levying penalty based on prima facie material from inspection records was valid and could not be assailed. GST: Where revenue quantified tax demand by erroneously treating exempted turnover as taxable and adopting figures from wrong period, quantification of demand was vitiated, necessitating reconsideration on merits after giving due opportunity to petitioner; thus, matter was to be remitted for fresh adjudication
Madras High Court
Where petitioner failed to respond to requests for information and show cause notices regarding possible non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful ITC, non-response amounted to suppression to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation and initiation of proceedings under Section 74; hence ex parte orders were warranted in absence of substantive reply, but matter remitted for de novo adjudication. GST: Where DRC-01A intimations and notices were issued for tax periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 after scrutiny and no replies were filed, ex parte orders confirming proposals were within limitation under Sections 73 and 74, and Appellate Authority could convert to Section 73 proceedings if Section 74 was wrongly invoked, provided proper reply to DRC-01 was available
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioners received consolidated SCNs as also consolidated orders covering multiple years under sections 73/74, such composite notices and orders were valid as statutes do not mandate FY-wise segregation and there was no statutory bar and limitation principles would apply period-wise; and jurisdiction was not defeated absent Article 14 or limitation breach
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 audit culminated in show cause notices and single orders-in-original covering multiple assessment years for determination of demands, objection to bunching multiple tax periods in a single proceeding was unsustainable in view of order passed in Chimney Hills Education Society v. Additional Commissioner of