Delhi High Court
For revenue
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Delhi, newest first.
5 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
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
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