Facts (Background):An inspection was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 08.03.2012 in relation to transactions in Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Made Foreign Liquor. Based on the inspection, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2018 proposing penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was issued. The assessee challenged the notice contending that it was issued after an unreasonable delay and therefore barred by limitation.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that even though Section 45A of the Act does not prescribe any specific limitation period for initiating penalty proceedings, such proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period of time. Referring to other provisions of the Act, the Court observed that the statute prescribes a five-year period for completion of assessments and escaped assessments, which can be treated as a reasonable benchmark.Since the inspection related to the assessment year 2011-12 and the show cause notice was issued only on 20.12.2018, the notice was issued beyond the reasonable period of five years. The Court further held that repeated notices issued by the department seeking production of records could not extend the limitation period. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, and the show cause notice was quashed.Cases Referred by Court:State of Punjab & Others vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.W.A. No. 344 of 2017 (Kerala High Court)W.P.(C) No. 2253 of 2017 (Kerala High Court)
Taj Garden Retreat vs. State of Kerala & Anr. 23-10-2025
Facts (Background):An inspection was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 08.03.2012 in relation to transactions in Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Made Foreign Liquor. Based on the inspection, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2018 proposing penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was issued. The assessee challenged the notice contending that it was issued after an unreasonable delay and therefore barred by limitation.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that even though Section 45A of the Act does not prescribe any specific limitation period for initiating penalty proceedings, such proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period of time. Referring to other provisions of the Act, the Court observed that the statute prescribes a five-year period for completion of assessments and escaped assessments, which can be treated as a reasonable benchmark.Since the inspection related to the assessment year 2011-12 and the show cause notice was issued only on 20.12.2018, the notice was issued beyond the reasonable period of five years. The Court further held that repeated notices issued by the department seeking production of records could not extend the limitation period. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, and the show cause notice was quashed.Cases Referred by Court:State of Punjab & Others vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.W.A. No. 344 of 2017 (Kerala High Court)W.P.(C) No. 2253 of 2017 (Kerala High Court)
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 30.06.2023 passed under Section 74 of the KGST Act read with Section 122(1)(vii), which demanded tax, interest and a penalty of ₹6,05,17,933. In the show cause notice dated 27.03.2023, tax and penalty were proposed in equal amounts. However, while passing the final order, the authority drastically reduced the tax and interest liability but increased the penalty amount far beyond the penalty proposed in the show cause notice. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the penalty.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 74(1) permits imposition of penalty only up to an amount equivalent to the tax specified in the show cause notice. Section 75(7) further provides that the amount demanded in the final order cannot exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice and cannot be based on grounds other than those mentioned in the notice.The Court observed that in the present case the tax and interest amounts were reduced in the final order, but the penalty was increased beyond the amount proposed in the show cause notice and also beyond the tax determined in the order. Such action was contrary to Sections 74 and 75 of the KGST Act.Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders to the extent of the penalty demand of ₹6,05,17,933 and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the issue of penalty, while directing the petitioner to pay the confirmed tax and interest amounts.Cases Referred by Court:None.
Metal N Strips vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals-3) & Anr. 17-10-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 30.06.2023 passed under Section 74 of the KGST Act read with Section 122(1)(vii), which demanded tax, interest and a penalty of ₹6,05,17,933. In the show cause notice dated 27.03.2023, tax and penalty were proposed in equal amounts. However, while passing the final order, the authority drastically reduced the tax and interest liability but increased the penalty amount far beyond the penalty proposed in the show cause notice. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the penalty.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 74(1) permits imposition of penalty only up to an amount equivalent to the tax specified in the show cause notice. Section 75(7) further provides that the amount demanded in the final order cannot exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice and cannot be based on grounds other than those mentioned in the notice.The Court observed that in the present case the tax and interest amounts were reduced in the final order, but the penalty was increased beyond the amount proposed in the show cause notice and also beyond the tax determined in the order. Such action was contrary to Sections 74 and 75 of the KGST Act.Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders to the extent of the penalty demand of ₹6,05,17,933 and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the issue of penalty, while directing the petitioner to pay the confirmed tax and interest amounts.Cases Referred by Court:None.
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The appeal was filed on 25.11.2024 against the adjudication order dated 26.07.2024. The petitioner contended that the limitation period of three months under Section 107(1) should be computed from the next day of the order and that the appeal was filed within the additional condonable period of one month under Section 107(4).Court Decision:The Court held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the day on which the order is passed must be excluded while computing the limitation period. Accordingly, the three-month limitation under Section 107(1) commenced from 27.07.2024 and expired on 27.10.2024. The further condonable period of one month under Section 107(4) extended up to 26.11.2024. Since the appeal was filed on 25.11.2024, it was within the permissible period.The Court set aside the order of the appellate authority which had incorrectly treated the appeal as time-barred and directed that the appeal be decided on merits.Cases Referred by Court:· State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 210· Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 197· Dodds v. Walker, (1981) 1 WLR 1027; (1981) 2 All ER 609
Laxmi Motors vs State of M.P. and Others 15-10-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The appeal was filed on 25.11.2024 against the adjudication order dated 26.07.2024. The petitioner contended that the limitation period of three months under Section 107(1) should be computed from the next day of the order and that the appeal was filed within the additional condonable period of one month under Section 107(4).Court Decision:The Court held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the day on which the order is passed must be excluded while computing the limitation period. Accordingly, the three-month limitation under Section 107(1) commenced from 27.07.2024 and expired on 27.10.2024. The further condonable period of one month under Section 107(4) extended up to 26.11.2024. Since the appeal was filed on 25.11.2024, it was within the permissible period.The Court set aside the order of the appellate authority which had incorrectly treated the appeal as time-barred and directed that the appeal be decided on merits.Cases Referred by Court:· State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 210· Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 197· Dodds v. Walker, (1981) 1 WLR 1027; (1981) 2 All ER 609
Facts The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered selling dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the selling dealers failed to deposit the tax with the Government. The selling dealers were registered at the time of transactions but later defaulted and their registrations were cancelled. The Delhi High Court held that the purchasing dealers were bona fide and entitled to ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Court Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. It held that where transactions and invoices are genuine and the selling dealer was registered at the time of transaction, ITC cannot be denied to bona fide purchasing dealers. The Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of ITC after due verification. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd.
Commissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi v. M/s Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. 09-10-2025
Facts The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered selling dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the selling dealers failed to deposit the tax with the Government. The selling dealers were registered at the time of transactions but later defaulted and their registrations were cancelled. The Delhi High Court held that the purchasing dealers were bona fide and entitled to ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Court Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. It held that where transactions and invoices are genuine and the selling dealer was registered at the time of transaction, ITC cannot be denied to bona fide purchasing dealers. The Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of ITC after due verification. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd.
Facts (Background):The petitioner, a developer engaged in construction projects, challenged the show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sections 74(1) and 74A of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, tax liability is determined with reference to the “tax period”, which is linked to the return filed for that period. Returns are filed either monthly or annually, and when the assessment is based on annual returns, the relevant tax period corresponds to the particular financial year.The Court observed that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe limitation for issuing orders based on the due date for filing the annual return for the respective financial year. Since the limitation operates separately for each financial year, the statute does not permit consolidation of multiple financial years into a single show cause notice.The Court further held that issuance of consolidated show cause notices covering several financial years frustrates the statutory limitation scheme and deprives the assessee of the opportunity to give year-specific explanations. Accordingly, the consolidated show cause notices issued for multiple financial years were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.Cases Referred by Court:· R A and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, W.P. No.17239 of 2025 (Madras High Court)· Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, W.P. No.33164 of 2023 (Madras High Court)· Veremax Technologie Services Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No.15810 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)-22, W.P. No.16500 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, 2025:KER:30805 (Kerala High Court)· State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350· RioCare India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex., (2025) 26 Centax 339 (Bombay High Court)· Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Milroc Good Earth Developers vs Union of India & Ors. 09-10-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner, a developer engaged in construction projects, challenged the show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sections 74(1) and 74A of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, tax liability is determined with reference to the “tax period”, which is linked to the return filed for that period. Returns are filed either monthly or annually, and when the assessment is based on annual returns, the relevant tax period corresponds to the particular financial year.The Court observed that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe limitation for issuing orders based on the due date for filing the annual return for the respective financial year. Since the limitation operates separately for each financial year, the statute does not permit consolidation of multiple financial years into a single show cause notice.The Court further held that issuance of consolidated show cause notices covering several financial years frustrates the statutory limitation scheme and deprives the assessee of the opportunity to give year-specific explanations. Accordingly, the consolidated show cause notices issued for multiple financial years were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.Cases Referred by Court:· R A and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, W.P. No.17239 of 2025 (Madras High Court)· Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, W.P. No.33164 of 2023 (Madras High Court)· Veremax Technologie Services Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No.15810 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)-22, W.P. No.16500 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, 2025:KER:30805 (Kerala High Court)· State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350· RioCare India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex., (2025) 26 Centax 339 (Bombay High Court)· Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Case Facts / Background:The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice issued for recovery of tax dues of a company in which he was a director. An assessment order had been passed against the company for the tax period 2018–19. The petitioner claimed resignation from the company and sought immunity under Section 89(1), submitting a representation to authorities. The company had separately challenged the assessment order, which was pending before the Court. Court Decision:The Court held that the issue of petitioner’s liability under Section 89 requires adjudication. It directed the authorities to treat the impugned attachment notice as a show cause notice and decide the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation within 30 days, and the authority to pass orders within two months thereafter. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted pending such adjudication, subject to conditions. Cases Referred by Court:None.
Subir Ghosh v. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors. 17-09-2025
Case Facts / Background:The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice issued for recovery of tax dues of a company in which he was a director. An assessment order had been passed against the company for the tax period 2018–19. The petitioner claimed resignation from the company and sought immunity under Section 89(1), submitting a representation to authorities. The company had separately challenged the assessment order, which was pending before the Court. Court Decision:The Court held that the issue of petitioner’s liability under Section 89 requires adjudication. It directed the authorities to treat the impugned attachment notice as a show cause notice and decide the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation within 30 days, and the authority to pass orders within two months thereafter. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted pending such adjudication, subject to conditions. Cases Referred by Court:None.
Facts (Background):The petitioner, a registered assessee, was subjected to inspection and show cause notices were issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22. Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.02.2024 demanding tax, interest and penalty were passed. The petitioner contended that the orders were only uploaded on the GST portal and were not otherwise communicated, resulting in the lapse of the time limit for filing appeal under Section 107.Court Decision:The Court held that Section 107 provides that limitation for filing appeal runs from the date on which the order is “communicated” to the assessee. Section 169 deals with modes of “service”, but the expressions “served” and “communicated” are not synonymous. Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not amount to communication of the order to the assessee.Since the impugned orders had only been uploaded on the portal and were not communicated to the petitioner through other modes, the limitation period for filing appeal had not commenced. The Court directed the authority to communicate the impugned orders to the petitioner, after which the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 107. Until such communication, the orders could not be enforced. Cases Referred by Court:· Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Nungambakkam Zone IV, Chennai Central Range, Chennai, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8986· Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract, Palakad, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11392· Ram Prasad Sharma v. Chief Commissioner, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4650· New Hanumat Marbles v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7171· Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456· Shahul Hameed v. CTO, Tuticorin-II (WP(MD) No.26481 of 2024)· Namasivaya Auto Cars v. The Deputy Sales Tax Officer-I, Korattur, 2025 (6) TMI 2027· Binod Traders v. Union of India, 2025 (6) TMI 251 (Patna High Court)· Raj International v. Commissioner (CGST), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2707· A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kanchipuram, 1972 SCC OnLine Mad 347· R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1994) 1 AC 530· NHAI v. Madhukar Kumar, (2022) 14 SCC 661· Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, 2025 INSC 236· Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108· M/s Lalaram Thekedar v. Union of India, Writ Tax No.2786 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) & Another 17-09-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner, a registered assessee, was subjected to inspection and show cause notices were issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22. Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.02.2024 demanding tax, interest and penalty were passed. The petitioner contended that the orders were only uploaded on the GST portal and were not otherwise communicated, resulting in the lapse of the time limit for filing appeal under Section 107.Court Decision:The Court held that Section 107 provides that limitation for filing appeal runs from the date on which the order is “communicated” to the assessee. Section 169 deals with modes of “service”, but the expressions “served” and “communicated” are not synonymous. Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not amount to communication of the order to the assessee.Since the impugned orders had only been uploaded on the portal and were not communicated to the petitioner through other modes, the limitation period for filing appeal had not commenced. The Court directed the authority to communicate the impugned orders to the petitioner, after which the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 107. Until such communication, the orders could not be enforced. Cases Referred by Court:· Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Nungambakkam Zone IV, Chennai Central Range, Chennai, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8986· Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract, Palakad, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11392· Ram Prasad Sharma v. Chief Commissioner, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4650· New Hanumat Marbles v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7171· Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456· Shahul Hameed v. CTO, Tuticorin-II (WP(MD) No.26481 of 2024)· Namasivaya Auto Cars v. The Deputy Sales Tax Officer-I, Korattur, 2025 (6) TMI 2027· Binod Traders v. Union of India, 2025 (6) TMI 251 (Patna High Court)· Raj International v. Commissioner (CGST), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2707· A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kanchipuram, 1972 SCC OnLine Mad 347· R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1994) 1 AC 530· NHAI v. Madhukar Kumar, (2022) 14 SCC 661· Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, 2025 INSC 236· Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108· M/s Lalaram Thekedar v. Union of India, Writ Tax No.2786 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
Facts :The petitioner was subjected to an assessment order dated 02.08.2025 raising a demand of over ₹244 crores. Prior to and immediately after the assessment, the authorities provisionally attached bank accounts and issued recovery notice dated 19.08.2025, resulting in recovery of ₹170 crores. Due to attachment and recovery, the petitioner could not file appeal as it was unable to arrange the statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner challenged the recovery, attachment, and conditions imposed by the Department.Court Decision:The Court held that once the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) is satisfied, a deemed stay of recovery operates and further coercive steps are not permissible. It directed that the amount already recovered be adjusted towards the 10% pre-deposit and the balance be refunded upon furnishing undertaking by the petitioner. The Court further held that restrictions on use of funds can be imposed only to safeguard revenue interests, and directed the petitioner to maintain specified balance and retain sale proceeds till disposal of appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for refund subject to undertakings and adjustment of pre-deposit.Cases Referred:None mentioned in the judgment.
Wingtech Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy 03-09-2025
Facts :The petitioner was subjected to an assessment order dated 02.08.2025 raising a demand of over ₹244 crores. Prior to and immediately after the assessment, the authorities provisionally attached bank accounts and issued recovery notice dated 19.08.2025, resulting in recovery of ₹170 crores. Due to attachment and recovery, the petitioner could not file appeal as it was unable to arrange the statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner challenged the recovery, attachment, and conditions imposed by the Department.Court Decision:The Court held that once the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) is satisfied, a deemed stay of recovery operates and further coercive steps are not permissible. It directed that the amount already recovered be adjusted towards the 10% pre-deposit and the balance be refunded upon furnishing undertaking by the petitioner. The Court further held that restrictions on use of funds can be imposed only to safeguard revenue interests, and directed the petitioner to maintain specified balance and retain sale proceeds till disposal of appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for refund subject to undertakings and adjustment of pre-deposit.Cases Referred:None mentioned in the judgment.
Facts :The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 02.02.2025 on the ground that notices for personal hearing were not received. The Department produced records showing that hearing notices were sent to the registered email address of the petitioner as available on the GST portal. The petitioner also argued that a consolidated notice/order for multiple financial periods was impermissible. The dispute involved allegations relating to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.Court Decision:The Court held that service of notice through the registered email address under Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act constitutes valid service. It found that hearing notices were duly sent to the petitioner’s registered email and the plea of non-service was not sustainable. On the issue of consolidated proceedings, the Court held that in cases involving fraudulent ITC spanning multiple periods, issuance of consolidated notice/order is permissible under Sections 73 and 74. The Court found no violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error and dismissed the writ petition with costs.Cases Referred:Rishi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, NorthMrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxState of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd.Bennet and White (Calgary) Ltd. v. Municipal District of Sugar City No. 5Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central ExciseAmbika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, DGGSTI
Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors. 26-08-2025
Facts :The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 02.02.2025 on the ground that notices for personal hearing were not received. The Department produced records showing that hearing notices were sent to the registered email address of the petitioner as available on the GST portal. The petitioner also argued that a consolidated notice/order for multiple financial periods was impermissible. The dispute involved allegations relating to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.Court Decision:The Court held that service of notice through the registered email address under Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act constitutes valid service. It found that hearing notices were duly sent to the petitioner’s registered email and the plea of non-service was not sustainable. On the issue of consolidated proceedings, the Court held that in cases involving fraudulent ITC spanning multiple periods, issuance of consolidated notice/order is permissible under Sections 73 and 74. The Court found no violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error and dismissed the writ petition with costs.Cases Referred:Rishi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, NorthMrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxState of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd.Bennet and White (Calgary) Ltd. v. Municipal District of Sugar City No. 5Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central ExciseAmbika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, DGGSTI
Facts (Background):A search was conducted on 03.08.2021 at the premises of the petitioner, a metal scrap dealer. Investigation by DGGI revealed that the petitioner had allegedly availed fraudulent ITC from several non-existent supplier firms and passed on such ITC through fake invoices. A show cause notice dated 29.05.2023 was issued for the period 2017-18 to 2021-22 proposing recovery of ₹83,76,32,528/- under Section 74 along with interest and penalty, which was confirmed by the adjudication order dated 23.01.2025.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned adjudication order was a detailed order passed after granting multiple opportunities of hearing and after considering the replies filed by the petitioner. The contention that the replies were not considered was rejected.The Court further held that issuance of a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act is permissible as the provisions use the expressions “for any period” and “for such periods”. In cases involving fraudulent availment or utilisation of ITC, transactions across several years may have to be examined together to establish the pattern of fraud.The Court also held that denial of cross-examination in show cause notice proceedings does not automatically vitiate the adjudication, as the right of cross-examination is not an unfettered right and depends on the facts of each case.Since the adjudication order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and involved disputed questions of fact, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy.Cases Referred by Court:· M/s Vallabh Textile Through Its Authorized Representative v. Additional/Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate & Ors.· Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner of Customs· M/s Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement, (2013) 9 SCC 549· Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj, (2008) 9 SCC 1· HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1236· Flevel International v. Central Excise, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12173
Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta vs Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North 29-07-2025
Facts (Background):A search was conducted on 03.08.2021 at the premises of the petitioner, a metal scrap dealer. Investigation by DGGI revealed that the petitioner had allegedly availed fraudulent ITC from several non-existent supplier firms and passed on such ITC through fake invoices. A show cause notice dated 29.05.2023 was issued for the period 2017-18 to 2021-22 proposing recovery of ₹83,76,32,528/- under Section 74 along with interest and penalty, which was confirmed by the adjudication order dated 23.01.2025.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned adjudication order was a detailed order passed after granting multiple opportunities of hearing and after considering the replies filed by the petitioner. The contention that the replies were not considered was rejected.The Court further held that issuance of a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act is permissible as the provisions use the expressions “for any period” and “for such periods”. In cases involving fraudulent availment or utilisation of ITC, transactions across several years may have to be examined together to establish the pattern of fraud.The Court also held that denial of cross-examination in show cause notice proceedings does not automatically vitiate the adjudication, as the right of cross-examination is not an unfettered right and depends on the facts of each case.Since the adjudication order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and involved disputed questions of fact, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy.Cases Referred by Court:· M/s Vallabh Textile Through Its Authorized Representative v. Additional/Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate & Ors.· Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner of Customs· M/s Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement, (2013) 9 SCC 549· Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj, (2008) 9 SCC 1· HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1236· Flevel International v. Central Excise, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12173
