High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Delhi, newest first.
36 rulings
Delhi High Court
Where notice for cancellation of registration was only uploaded on portal without proof of receipt or acknowledgement, such mere portal upload did not constitute valid service of notice, and petitioner was entitled to apply for restoration of registration with such application to be considered on merits without being affected by limitation
Delhi High Court
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
Delhi High Court
Where adjudication was challenged on ground that show cause notice was not duly served, depriving petitioner of opportunity to reply and liability was presumed by respondent without valid service, writ forum confined issue to validity of service and limitation, and as per Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [2026] 188 was required to be addressed accordingly
Delhi High Court
Where petitioners challenged constitutional validity of section 17(5)(c) and (d) of CGST Act regarding blocked credit for works contract for construction of immovable property invoking functionality test and apprehended loss of benefits due to litigation delay, since challenge was foreclosed by Supreme Court, functionality test was to be applied case wise
Delhi High Court
Where provisional attachment of bank accounts was ordered under section 83 and one year had lapsed since issuance, attachment ceased by operation of law and accounts were required to be de-frozen, with competent authority to record the one- year cap and banks to de-freeze accounts automatically after expiry absent a fresh valid order
Delhi High Court
Section 67 covered search, seizure and provisional release while Section 74A addressed determination of tax liability, both provisions operated in distinct fields and provisional release under Section 67(6) was not dependent on proceedings under Section 74A(9)
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 petitioner challenged SCN and order-in-original alleging tax not paid and fraud-related demand under CGST after being heard and afforded detailed adjudication, existence of effective statutory appellate remedy before Appellate Authority meant writ could not be entertained, and questions of fact or competing statutory provisions including period-specific applicability were to be decided in statutory appeal
Delhi High Court
Where SCN quantified penalties against petitioners under section 122(1A) before substituted proviso to section 107(6) mandated 10% pre-deposit for penalty- only appeals, right of appeal vested when SCN was issued and appeals arising from such SCN are governed by pre-amended provision, and so 10% pre-deposit requirement would not apply
Delhi High Court
Where CESTAT determined taxability of service and appeal was filed under section 35G, since precedent establishes that such appeals lie to Supreme Court under section 35L, and appellant cited no contrary statutory provision or binding precedent, appeal before High Court was not maintainable and appellant was relegated to remedy before Supreme Court
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
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
Delhi High Court
Where assessee applied for refund of unutilized ITC while SCN proposed partial rejection and OIO partially sanctioned refund and rejected balance while OIA set aside OIO to extent of wrongful rejection without mandating unconditional release or foreclosing further examination; since a subsequent order rejected refund, proper course was statutory appeal to test reasons and scope and effect of OIA GST: Where petitioner challenged rejection of refund of unutilized ITC, statutory appeal remedy being available, writ interference was not warranted; liberty was granted to pursue statutory appeal
Delhi High Court
Where penalty proceedings for issuance of invoices without actual supply and wrongful ITC were initiated after an investigation found recipient non-existent, and statutory appeal under section 107 was available to challenge both jurisdiction and procedural grounds, writ petition under Article 226 was not entertained, and petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, leaving all questions open for consideration by Appellate Authority
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner, a proprietor engaged in trading agro-chemical products, was issued SCN for mis-declaration, undervaluation and clandestine clearance leading to demand of tax, interest and penalties, proper officer adjudicating tax liability from SCN was also competent to impose all consequential penalties in same adjudication as statute does not require separate proceedings, showing no jurisdictional error
Delhi High Court
Where company issued high value E-way bills without filing GST returns, was non-existent at registered address, failed to respond to summons but only sent replies, and investigation suggested ineligible ITC and circular trading, seven days prior notice before arrest was justified as natural justice and not a blanket restraint, upholding department's right to investigate and proceed in law