Menu
Menu

Category: GST Case Laws

ZANA INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR VIBHAS MOHAN BHUTANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Justice ZANA INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR VIBHAS MOHAN BHUTANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. W.P.(C) 7630/2025, CM APPL. 34026/2025 dated 28.05.2025 Law : Service Tax Notification/Circular : Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 Decision : Disposed off Challenge to. Notification no. 9/2023-CT dated 31.03.2023 – Notice […]

THALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI

High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Justice THALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI W.P.(C) 5563/2025 dated 27.05.2025 Law : GST Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 Decision : Disposed off Refund – Seconded employees – Petition filed under Article 226 seeking refund as Court quashed […]

M/s UNITY TRADERS v. PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR-DGGI & ANR.

High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Justice M/s UNITY TRADERS v. PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR-DGGI & ANR. W.P.(C) 7239/2025 dated 28.05.2025 Law : GST Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 Relevant Section : Section 107 Decision : Disposed off Freezing of bank account – Appeal filed against Order-in-Original – One account […]

High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Justice ADAM SMITH COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ASHISH MADAN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX W.P.(C) 7025/2025 &CM APPLS. 31615/2025, 31616/2025 dated 22.05.2025 Law : GST Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 Decision : Disposed off Demand – Underdeclared outward supplies – Excess ITC due to non-reconciliation – Petitioner submitted detailed reply asserting tax on outward supplies already paid via Form DRC-03 and no ITC claimed on exempt supplies – Non consideration of reply filed – No personal hearing – Held: Writ petition disposed – Impugned order set aside – Authority to issue fresh notice for personal hearing on email & mobile no . Represented By: Counsel for the Petitioner: Rajesh Jain, Virag Tiwari, Ramashish, Rishabh Jain & Tanya Saraswat, Advs Counsel for the Respondent: Urvi Mohan, Adv. Order: 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the order dated 27th February, 2025 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO (hereinafter, the ‘Sales Tax Officer’) pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 26th November, 2024 issued by the Sales Tax Office. 3. Vide the impugned order, various demands have been raised qua the Petitioner, in respect of tax on outward supplies, excess Input Tax Credit on account of non–reconciliation of information, etc. 4. Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel submits that a reply was filed by the Petitioner on 24th February, 2025, however, no personal hearing was held and the main issue in respect of taxable and exempt supplies has not even been considered in the impugned order. The reply of the Petitioner is set out below: “We, Adam Smith Commodities Private Limited (herein referred as ‘the Company’) is registered with your good–office vide GST no. 07AAMCA0036D1Z6 having registered principal place of business at 8th Floor, Commercial Tower, Hotel Le Meridien, Windsor Place, Janpath, New Delhi, Central Delhi, Delhi, 110001. The Company is in receipt of the captioned notice, whereby your good office has asked for information for FY 2020–2021. (Hereinafter referred as ‘relevant period’). In response to the same we are submitting the below response. 1. The tax on outward supplies under declared on reconciliation of data in GSTR–09 Basis the notice issued, office of your good self has noticed that the company has short paid liability on outward supplies amounting to INR 20,000. In response to the same we would like to submit that the company has already paid requisite taxes via DRC 03. The copy of DRC 03 is enclosed (ARN 4D070821021139A dated 27 August 2021) 2 The excess input tax credit (ITC) claimed on account of non–reconciliation of information The goodself has contended in the notice that the noticee has underre versed the Input Tax Credit on exempt supplies as per Rule 42 & 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017 According to Rules 42 and 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Common Input Tax Credit (ITC) refers to ITC for inputs or input services that are partially used for making taxable supplies, including zero–rated supplies, and partially for making exempt supplies The noticee wishes to submit that they deal in both taxable and exempt supplies. The Company itself does not avail any ITC which is pertaining to the Exempt Business, as it is more of a trading line of business, where buy from the manufacturer and directly ship to the Customer. The calculated ITC reversal on exempt supplies as per notice is incorrect as it considers the entire input tax credit as common Office. The noticee has correctly availed ITC and therefore, there is no outstanding liability to be paid concerning this matter, in accordance with the notice. In light of the submissions made above, it is most humbly prayed before your goodself to set aside the impugned SCN and drop the legal proceedings in this context Should your good–self require any further document(s} information, we shall be glad to provide the sane” 5. On a perusal of the said reply, it is observed that very specific issues have been raised by the Petitioner, however, the same were not considered as the impugned order merely records that the reply is unsatisfactory. 6. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Let a personal hearing be afforded to the Petitioner. Notice of the same be issued on the following email address and mobile no.: o Email ID: rajeshroshanjain@gmail.com, infotax@rediffmail.com o Mobile No.: 9810042928 7. After affording a personal hearing to the Petitioner, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 8. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Justice ADAM SMITH COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ASHISH MADAN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX W.P.(C) 7025/2025 &CM APPLS. 31615/2025, 31616/2025 dated 22.05.2025 Law : GST Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 Decision : Disposed off Demand – […]

High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Justice ROHAN AGGARWAL v. COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI NORTH & ORS. W.P.(C) 8045/2025 & CM APPL. 35256/2025 dated 30.05.2025 Law : GST Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 Relevant Section : Section 107 Decision : Dismissed Waiver of pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of CGST Act – Fraud ITC – Good less invoices – Held: Petition dismissed – Court is not inclined to waive pre-deposit. Represented By: Counsel for the Petitioner: Jitin Singhal & Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advs Counsel for the Respondent: Harpreet Singh, SSC with Suhani Mathur, Jai Ahuja & Arunesh Sharma, Advs., Monica Benjamin, SSC with Nancy Jain, Adv Order: 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 35257/2025 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 8045/2025 & CM APPL. 35256/2025 3. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Rohan Aggarwal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking waiver of pre-deposit as mandated under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, for filing an appeal against four orders. 4. The details of the orders in which the Petitioner is seeking waiver of pre-deposit, containing the details of tax imposed as also the total amount of pre-deposit required is set out below: S. No. Order-in-Original Tax Amount of pre-deposit required (10% of tax) 1. O-i-O No.80/ADC/D.N. Shaukat Ali Nurvi/2024-25 dated 27.01.2025 67,14,866 + Interest + Penalty 6,71,487 2. O-i-O No.84/ADC/D.N. Shaukat Ali Nurvi/2024-25 dated 27.01.2025 60,38,187 + Interest + Penalty 6,03,819 3. O-i-O No.58/ADC/D.N. Shaukat Ali Nurvi/2024-25 dated 21.01.2025 32,94,720 + Interest + Penalty 3,29,472 4. O-i-O No.189/ADC/D.N./ Bhavan Meena/2024-25 dated 04.02.2025 6,51,964 + Interest + Penalty 65,197 TOTAL 16,69,975/- 5. In terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and after perusing the facts where the allegations are of fraudulent availment of ITC and supply of goods-less invoices, the Court is not inclined to waive the pre-deposit. 6. Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Justice ROHAN AGGARWAL v. COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI NORTH & ORS. W.P.(C) 8045/2025 & CM APPL. 35256/2025 dated 30.05.2025 Law : GST Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 Relevant Section : Section 107 Decision : Dismissed Waiver of pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of CGST […]

M/s ANIANKITA EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUPERINTENDENT RANGE – 126, DELHI (WEST) COMMISSIONERATE, DIVISION UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI,

High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Justice M/s ANIANKITA EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUPERINTENDENT RANGE – 126, DELHI (WEST) COMMISSIONERATE, DIVISION UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI, W.P.(C) 7882/2025 dated 29.05.2025 Law : GST Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 Relevant Section : Section 29 Decision : Disposed off Cancellation of registration […]

M/s ALFA ENTERPRISES v. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER & ANR.

High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Justice M/s ALFA ENTERPRISES v. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER & ANR. W.P.(C) 8149/2025 & CM APPL. 35645/2025, CM APPL. 35646/2025, CM APPL. 35647/2025 dated 30.05.2025 Law : GST Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 Decision : In favour of assessee Cancellation of registration – […]