Stay updated
The Delhi High Court, in Bhupender Kumar case imposed a penalty amounting to approximately Rs. 285 crore under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017, along with additional penalties under Sections 122(3)(a), (d), (e) and Section 125 of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. held that where excess GST becomes ascertainable only after a conciliation settlement having the force of a decree, the limitation for refund runs from the date of such settlement under Explanation 2(d) to Section 54; hence, rejection of DMRC’s refund claim as time‑barred was unsustainable.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Directorate General of GST Intelligence held that cancellation of bail is not justified in absence of supervening circumstances, especially when no complaint is filed and the accused has deposited more than 10% of the disputed ITC liability & fulfilled all the pre-conditions for grant of bail.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Thales India Private Limited held that the GST Department cannot refuse to process refund on the ground that it does not accept a binding High Court decision, especially when no stay or appeal exists.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Wadhera held that where serious allegations of fraudulent availment of IGST refunds are levelled against the Petitioner, and opportunity of hearing was available but not availed, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked and the Petitioner must approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s KEI Industries Limited held that where no cross-charge has been made by the Head Office (HO) to its Branch Offices (BOs) and full ITC is available to the recipient unit, the value of such IGS shall be deemed to be ‘Nil’ under Rule 28 of the CGST Rules, and no IGST is payable.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sun Automation Ltd. held that parallel proceedings cannot run simultaneously in GST regime as against the Petitioner given the fact that the CGST Department had already adjudicated the matter on the same issue and the DGST Department does not have the power to adjudicate on the same vide Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. set aside the demand order which was raised against Assessee for availing ineligible ITC.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. S.R. Enterprises dismissed the four writ petitions filed by GST registered entities after discovering that the petitions were based on forged Aadhaar cards, fabricated SCNs, and fictitious identities.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Mahesh Fabrinox Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the writ petition filed against the order passed wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner is involved in passing off of fraudulent ITC and further, limited the scope of invoking writ jurisdiction in such cases where there is violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error, especially when the Petitioner has not approached with clean hands.