The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging ITC demands, noting that an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available and must be pursued.
Court held that directing a ₹5-crore deposit was unwarranted since the disputed issues had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee. The order was set aside.
Ram Ashish Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The Delhi High Court delivered its order in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration dated 21st March, 2025, which was applied retrospectively from 14th June, 2024. The petitioner, operating from premises […]
The Court remanded the matter after finding the tax order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply or be heard. The case will be reconsidered, subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the relevant notifications.
The Court held that a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot replace statutory procedures. The gold bar seized at IGI Airport must be reviewed following proper notice and hearing.
The Court dismissed a challenge to a bank account attachment after finding material facts concealed, including ongoing investigations and alleged fraudulent ITC. The ruling affirms that objections must be raised through the statutory mechanism under Rule 159(5).
The Court observed that marketing services for a foreign university prima facie constitute export of services, making the petitioner eligible for GST refund.
The High Court held that while Section 128A(4A) directs Customs appeals to be decided within six months, this is a directory provision. Appeals should be disposed of as soon as possible to avoid undue delay.
Delhi High Court held that GST SCN based on documents, statements, evidence seized passed on by Income Tax Department cannot be held to be baseless and vague. High Court warns GST Department and other departments to be careful while citing judicial precedents specifically if the same has been produced or accessed through Artificial Intelligence [AI] software.
The Court held that refund appeals pending for years must be decided within the statutory one-year period under the CGST Act. It directed the Appellate Authority to issue orders by January 2026.
