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...

India-Netherlands DTAA | AO Can't Use Reassessment To Cure Own Failure To Record On PE: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot invoke reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely to make up for his own failure to record a finding on the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, after having conducted an inquiry into the issue during the original assessment.The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Elsevier BV, a company incorporated...

HC Can't Bypass Customs Statutory Appeal Merely Due To Financial Hardship In Making Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate mechanism under the Customs Act merely by citing financial hardship in complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging ₹3 crore penalty imposed on a man in connection with an alleged attempt to export red sanders wood concealed beneath carpets."However, once the legislature has...

Welfare-Oriented Rehabilitation Policy Cannot Preserve Claims Extinguished Under IBC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a rehabilitation policy or agreement with a project-affected person cannot preserve a claim merely because it is welfare-oriented, as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides inconsistent laws and policies.Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar observed, “Thus, Rehabilitation policy or any agreement with project affected (displaced) person cannot facilitate claim as an exception for the reason that it is welfare oriented. Section 238 of IBC gives Insolvency...

Venture Capital Funds Need No Separate SEBI Registration For Each Scheme For Income Tax Exemption: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) registered with SEBI does not need separate registration for each scheme it operates to claim exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act.A Division Bench comprising Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Milestone Real Estate Fund. The court upheld the Fund's eligibility for the exemption.Section 10(23FB) provides that income earned by a qualifying VCF from...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Excludes Automatic Stay Period From Limitation For Execution Of Arbitral Award

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an execution petition filed in 2025 to enforce a 2012 arbitral award was within limitation. It held that the period during which the award was deemed to be automatically stayed under the law then prevailing had to be excluded while calculating limitation.Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed, “In the instant case, objections under Section 34 of the Act were preferred by the respondent-Judgment Debtor within the prescribed limitation period. Therefore,...

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...

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside ₹13.08 Crore Award To L&T In Bengaluru Metro Contract Dispute

The Karnataka High Court has recently set aside parts (around ₹13.08 Crore) of an arbitral award arising from a ₹303.29 crore Bengaluru Metro construction contract between Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL).The court found shortcomings in the tribunal's treatment of claims relating to reduced parapet quantities, revised rates for 18 delayed pier locations and unpaid reinforcement quantities. It also set aside the tribunal's finding on...

Income Tax Penalty On Reduced Expenditure Claim Under APA Contrary To Act, Unsustainable: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that imposing an income tax penalty on account of a reduction in an expenditure claim pursuant to a position settled under an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) is contrary to the scheme of the Income-tax Act and cannot be sustained.A division bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed that the APA framework, introduced to reduce tax litigation, would be rendered ineffective if consequential penalties could be imposed after an expenditure...