Delhi High Court
For revenue
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Delhi, newest first.
3 rulings found
Delhi High Court
Where DGGI initiated proceedings for ITC fraud against multiple noticees including petitioner while a separate proceeding was initiated by State GST officer against petitioner for denial of ITC due to non-payment of tax by supplier, bar on parallel proceedings did not apply as proceedings addressed distinct subject matters; mere commonality in petitioner, period, or transactions was insufficient to constitute identity of subject matter. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, subsequent conclusion of DGGI proceedings did not extinguish independent demand raised by State GST officer on separate statutory grounds; absence of recovery in DGGI proceedings did not retrospectively invalidate separate proceedings concerning short payment and ITC ineligibility. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, where petitioner was only a co-noticee in DGGI proceedings and no penalty, tax, or interest was imposed on petitioner in that matter, proceedings by State GST officer for ame act would not attract bar against penalty, as protection applies only if prior penalty on petitioner for same act is established and shown
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 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