GST | Same Assessee, Overlapping Periods Not Enough To Bar DGGI Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings initiated by State GST authorities and the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are not barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, merely because they relate to the same assessee, overlapping financial periods, or involve Input Tax Credit (ITC).The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) is attracted only when the subsequent...

Objection To Parallel State GST, DGGI Proceedings Can Be Raised In Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court Refuses Writ

The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer challenging proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) on the ground that the same subject matter had already been dealt with by State GST authorities can raise the objection under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), before the statutory appellate authority.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a plea by challenging show cause notice...

GST | Disputed SCN Service, Personal Hearing Issues Cannot Be Raised In Writ Plea: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction over pleas by two directors of Sterne India Pvt. Ltd. challenging a ₹27.11 crore GST penalty. The court held that their claims over service of the show cause notice (SCN) and denial of personal hearing involved factual issues that could be examined by the statutory appellate authority. According to the court, these grievances did not justify bypassing the remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and...

GST | Proceedings Under Sections 73, 74 Can Co-Exist If They Concern Distinct Infractions: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) can co-exist where they concern distinct liabilities or contraventions.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a plea filed challenging proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities under Section 74 of the CGST Act in relation to alleged inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by...

Taxpayer's Assignment To State Tax Administration Doesn't Bar DGGI's Pan-India Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that merely because a taxpayer is administratively assigned to the State tax administration, it does not bar the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) from exercising its pan-India jurisdiction to investigate alleged GST evasion.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with a batch of petitions filed by a real estate company which has GST registrations in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu...

Delhi High Court Upholds GST Circular Allowing Common Adjudication Of Composite SCNs Based On Highest Demand

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of a GST circular prescribing the 'highest amount of demand' criterion for selecting a Common Adjudicating Authority where a composite show-cause notice is issued to multiple noticees falling under different jurisdictions.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the circular does not confer any fresh jurisdiction on an officer. Rather, it merely provides an administrative mechanism for selecting, from among officers who...

GST Refund Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because Department Plans To Challenge Appellate Order: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has recently ruled that a GST refund authority cannot reopen an ITC dispute already decided by an appellate authority merely because the department proposes to challenge that order. An appellate order remains operative unless it is stayed, modified, or set aside in accordance with law. If the department seeks to withhold the refund while further proceedings are pending, it must comply with the requirements of Section 54(11) of the CGST Act.A Division Bench of Chief...

Advocate-Client Privilege Cannot Bar GST Search Of Advocate's Office If His Role Is Under Probe: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the search conducted by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department at an Advocate's office, including seizure of a CPU from his cabin, holding that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself where there is prima facie material indicating his possible involvement in the affairs under investigation.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain, however, clarified...

Madras High Court Sets Aside Orders Over Inzi Controls Air & Oil Filter Classification, Remands Matter

The Madras High Court on 8 September set aside appellate orders concerning the classification of air and oil filters manufactured by Inzi Controls India Limited and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. A Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order in a batch of petitions filed by Inzi Controls, which manufactures air and oil filters supplied to automobile companies. The company had classified the filters under Chapter 84, while the Tax...

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside ₹91 Lakh GST Demand Against King Enterprise Over Ex Parte Proceedings

The Karnataka High Court on 11 September set aside a GST tax and penalty demand of Rs. 91,00,384 against King Enterprise, finding that the proceedings had been completed ex parte without affording the business an effective opportunity to present its case. Justice T.M. Nadaf set aside the tax and summary orders against the company and remanded the matter to the tax authority for fresh consideration. The Bench observed: “The petitioner should have been more circumspect and cautious while...

Post-Facto Approval Cannot Bring Pre-GST Services Within GST Regime: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on 14 September held that post-facto approval of work completed before the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) cannot alter the date of supply or bring the completed service within the GST regime. Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee allowed a writ petition filed by Goutam Engineering Concern against West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) and directed the latter to release Rs. 19,91,148 towards payment for technical personnel...

J&K High Court Stays ₹3.88 Cr. GST Show Cause Notice Against Uflex Ltd. For Lack Of Fraud Allegations

On 16 September, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stayed a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where the petitioner challenged the invocation of the provision in the absence of foundational facts of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Shahzad Azeem issued notice to the respondents and stayed the effect and operation of the...