Delhi High Court
For assessee
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Delhi, newest first.
5 rulings found
Delhi High Court
Where tax demand order was merely uploaded on GST Common Portal without separate service or acknowledgement, such upload alone did not amount to valid service and did not trigger limitation for appeal, thus petitioner was permitted to file statutory appeal within four weeks and appeal could not be rejected as time-barred on basis of portal upload
Delhi High Court
Where penalty-only SCNs were issued prior to introduction of pre-deposit requirement for appeals, such pre-deposit condition could not apply retrospectively and GSTAT must entertain appeals in penalty-only cases arising from such SCNs without insisting on pre-deposit, ensuring appellate right was unaffected by whether first or second appeal was involved
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner’s ITC in electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A, requested adjustment of blocked credit for pre-deposit against confirmed IGST demand was declined, since blocking does not constitute payment or appropriation towards an adjudicated demand and debit cannot occur until restriction is removed or modified, thus only unblocked ECL credit may be used for pre-deposit, not mandatorily cash ledger
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 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