Stay updated
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mr.Gurdev Raj Kumar, held that the levy of deficient stamp duty and penalty on a lease deed for residential property by including GST and water charges in the lease rent computation is not legally sustainable, and the impugned order directing payment was quashed with a refund directed.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sharma Trading Company held that when GST rates are reduced, the benefit must be passed directly to consumers through a corresponding reduction in the product’s price, and simply increasing the product quantity without reducing the maximum retail price (MRP) amounts to deception. The court emphasized that such practices defeat the purpose of tax cuts and curtail consumer choice, reaffirming that price reduction is mandatory under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
THE HON’BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OFAnshul Jain V/s Commissioner of CGST, decided on 22-12-2023
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Genesis Enterprises & Ors. held that surprise search and seizure actions under Section 67 of the CGST Act are valid when “reason to believe” is properly documented, but authorities must follow statutory safeguards, fair procedure, and ensure privacy and protected access to seized electronic data, including communication norms and de-sealing directions.
Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. V/s Additional Commissioner, CGST, West Delhi
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi East &Anr. [W.P.(C) 4987/2025 &CM APPL. 22937/2025, order dated September 24, 2025] held that foreign exchange realization certificates (FIRCs) submitted by exporters need not match invoice-wise or transaction-wise, and that periodic remittance supported by total benefit claimed is sufficient for GST refund.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sonu Monu Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 2926/2025, order dated July 10, 2025] held that the Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act is empowered to fully adjudicate the entire matter afresh, including considering the taxpayer’s reply, evidence, and arguments, and that the only embargo is that the matter cannot be remanded back to the adjudicating authority.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh Thukral held that if a refund amount belonging to a taxpayer is mistakenly adjusted against an outstanding demand, which was later cancelled, the taxpayer must receive the refund along with statutory interest.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puneet Batra held that the office, documents, and electronic devices of an advocate are protected by attorney-client privilege and cannot be searched or seized by GST authorities except in exceptional circumstances,
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Benito Operations and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. held that once an appeal has been filed against an adjudication order, along with the mandatory pre-deposit as required under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act. The provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 cannot be sustained and is to be set aside.