-
In this case, although payments were made in GST DRC-03, acknowledgement of having accepted the payment in GST DRC-04 is absent.
Vallabh Textiles vs Senior Intelligence Officer & ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 7035 (HC-DELHI)
-
The proper officer under Section 74(2) has to issue a show-cause notice as per Section 74, at least six months prior to the time limit specified in Sub-section 74(10) for issuance of the order.
Dhruv Krishan Maggu vs. Principal Director General, DGGI
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 7016 (HC-DELHI)
-
The restriction, as contemplated under Rule 86A(1) of the CGST Rules, can be imposed only where the ITC available in the ECR has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible.
Sunny Jain vs UOI & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 7014 (HC-DELHI)
-
Matter requires examination, as the impact of the impugned notice prima facie appears to be on the petitioner.
Ebixcash Mobility Software India Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6991 (HC-DELHI)
-
Interest amount directed to be paid by the respondents as well as the penalty proceedings and further investigation by NAA in respect of cinema halls of petitioner for extended period of time as provided for in the impugned order are stayed till further orders.
NY Cinemas LLP vs. UOI & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6940 (HC-DELHI)
-
Matter has been hanging fire without the revenue taking requisite steps, either vis-a-vis the petition or with regard to imposition and/or recovery of penalty.
Uflix Industries vs UOI & Ors
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6939 (HC-DELHI)
-
Revenue is directed to accord a leeway of eight weeks to the Assessee to upload the returns for the period during which its registration stood cancelled.
Bimal Kothari vs. Assistant Commissioner (DSGST) & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6917 (HC-DELHI)
-
Procrastination on the part of the petitioner got compounded in the appeal being filed well beyond the time prescribed under the Act.
Bansal Surinder vs Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes/GST (State) & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6908 (HC-DELHI)
-
DGAP in its investigation has provided a completely arbitrary formula, which has no sanction in law, to compute how benefits are to be determined.
Airmid Real Estate Ltd vs. UOI & Ors
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6903 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITC will be denied only where purchases are proved to be collusive and in the nature of sham transactions.
IAN Consultancy LLP vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6828 (HC-DELHI)
-
No effect will be given to the communication issued to the petitioner by the office of Commissioner of Central GST Audit-II, Delhi while assessee would be free to approach the respondents for grant of consequential relief.
Hero Motocorp Ltd vs UOI & ors
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6824 (HC-DELHI)
-
Section 171 casts an obligation of every supplier of goods and services/registered person to pass on the benefit of rate reduction of GST or the benefit of ITC on every supply and not on some supplies.
L’oreal India Pvt Ltd vs UOI & ors
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6765 (HC-DELHI)
-
Residential accommodation taken on rent for personal use will be treated as exempt and all the respondents are held bound by the same and accordingly, disposes the writ petition.
Seema Gupta Vs UOI & Ors
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6760 (HC-DELHI)
-
The provisional attachment order dated August 14, 2020 has not been renewed even though adverse order was passed on September 28, 2020, and more than one year has passed since provisional attachment order was issued.
Neutron Steel Trading Pvt Ltd vs UOI & Ors
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6718 (HC-DELHI)
-
Revenue is directed to remit interest w.r.t. refund concerning CGST, IGST and SGST in terms of Section 54 of CGST Act, before the next hearing date.
Steelex Exports Pvt Ltd vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6716 (HC-DELHI)
-
There is, certainly, an infraction of the provisions of Rule 25 of the CGST, and that apart, as indicated above, the impugned order has gone beyond the frame of the SCN.
Balaji Enterprises vs Pr. ADGGSTI
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6710 (HC-DELHI)
-
Sr. Standing Counsel is directed to take instructions, as to whether the respondent/revenue, in the facts of this case, would like to revisit its position.
Pratibha Mosinzhstroi Consortium vs. Commissioner of CGST
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6669 (HC-DELHI)
-
Revenue did not comply with the requirement of serving notice on the concerned person as per Rule 25 as this did not form part of the order cancelling the registration.
Aditya Narayan Ojha vs Principal Commissioner
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6628 (HC-DELHI)
-
Statutory Interest is payable u/s 56 when the principal amount towards refund is processed by Revenue in delayed tranches.
Ankush Auto Deals vs Commissioner of DGST & Anr.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6593 (HC-DELHI)
-
Blocking of bank account via a communication purportedly in exercise of powers u/s 83 of CGST Act is not tenable without complying with the jurisdictional prerequisites embedded in section 83.
Zuric Traders vs The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Delhi and anr.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6592 (HC-DELHI) · Section 83
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.