Sahara India Tax Appeals To Be Heard By Delhi ITAT Despite AO's Lucknow Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by Sahara India group companies and directed that their pending income tax appeals be heard by the Delhi Bench of ITAT , even though the Assessing Officer (AO) having jurisdiction over the assessees was situated in Lucknow.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary noted that more than 100 appeals concerning the assessee's group companies were already being heard by the Delhi Bench and that both the assessees...

Delhi HC Refuses To Quash ₹47.93 Lakh GST Demand, Says Common Supplier Alone Doesn't Bar Parallel Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a ₹47.93 lakh GST demand against a taxpayer, holding that the mere fact that State and Central GST proceedings involved the same supplier does not, by itself, attract the bar against parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that the expression “same subject matter” under Section 6(2)(b) has to be determined by examining the...

Already Revoked Customs Broker Licence Cannot Be Revoked Again: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a Customs Broker licence which has already been revoked cannot be revoked again in separate proceedings, observing that such an action is beyond the statutory provisions and results in multiplicity of litigation.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing the appeal of a proprietorship concern which was granted a Customs Broker license in November 2016.The Customs authorities had, by an order dated July 1, 2020, revoked the licence...

Micromax's ₹154 Crore Deposit In Ericsson Patent Case Was Not Royalty For Service Tax: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that ₹154.79 crore deposited by Micromax Informatics Ltd. pursuant to interim orders passed in a patent dispute with Ericsson could not be treated as a payment towards royalty for the purpose of service tax.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing an appeal filed by the CGST Department against a CESTAT order upholding the dropping of a service tax demand against Micromax.The dispute arose from litigation between Micromax and...

GST Refund Can Be Withheld During Anti-Evasion Probe Involving Fraud, Malfeasance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the pendency of an Anti-Evasion investigation, coupled with the Commissioner's finding of suspected fraud or malfeasance, can justify withholding a GST refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act even when no appeal against the order granting the refund is pending.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by an electronics exporter, which had sought release of a...

Delhi High Court Upholds Customs Broker Licence Revocation Over Forged Graduation Degree

The Delhi High Court has upheld the revocation of a Customs Broker licence after finding that the graduation degree submitted by the broker was forged.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed an appeal filed by R.K. Logistics challenging a CESTAT order which had upheld the revocation of its license, forfeiture of security and imposition of a ₹50,000 penalty.Appellant had applied for a Customs Broker licence in 2014 under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations,...

Delhi High Court Questions Income Tax Dept. Over Two PANs Issued In Same Person's Name, Seeks Records

The Delhi High Court has questioned the Income Tax Department over the issuance of two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) in the name of the same person and directed the Department to produce the original records relating to both PAN cards.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary was hearing a petition filed by Neeraj Kukreja, who claimed that he holds only one PAN and had neither applied for nor obtained the second PAN attributed to him. The Income Tax Department however...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With 2003 Customs Notice To Mangali Impex, Cites SC's Canon India Ruling

The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with a 2003 show cause notice issued by the Customs Department to Mangali Impex Ltd., holding that the issue of whether the officer who issued the notice was the “proper officer” has already been settled by the Supreme Court in favour of the department.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing a petition challenging the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Intelligence & Investigation...

Delhi HC Quashes 2005-06 VAT Demand Against Builder Over Lack Of Taxable Turnover Rules

The Delhi High Court has quashed a Value Added Tax (VAT) demand raised against a builder for the assessment year 2005-06, holding that the levy could not be enforced in the absence of machinery provisions prescribing the manner of determining taxable turnover for works contracts.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain allowed the petition filed by a builder, challenging demand and notice of default assessment.The Court noted that two issues arose for consideration: whether...

Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict In Vedanta's Appeal Against Rejection Of Oil Block Contract Extension Bid

The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved judgment in Vedanta Ltd.'s appeal challenging the July 22, 2026 judgment of a Single Judge which upheld the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas's rejection of Vedanta's application for extension of the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) for the CB-OS/2 oil and gas block in Gujarat.The Single Judge held that Vedanta had rendered itself ineligible for extension by unilaterally deducting the Government's share of profit petroleum towards its Special...

Arbitrator's Mandate Not Automatically Terminated By Expiry Of Indicative Timeline: Delhi High Court

On 30 September, the Delhi High Court held that an arbitrator's mandate does not end merely because an indicative time period fixed by the Court for completing proceedings has expired, unless the direction imposed a mandatory deadline. A Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed M.K. Construction's appeal against an arbitral award in its residential construction dispute with Maj. Gen. Hoshiar Singh (Retd). It observed: “The direction of this Court did not...

Delhi High Court Restrains Clothing Business From Using 'Men's Darzi' Mark

The Delhi High Court has restrained a clothing business from using the "Men's Darzi" mark from using the trademark, its accompanying logo or any identical or deceptively similar mark in relation to goods and services, including clothing and apparel.Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction on September 18, 2026, after finding that Darzi (India) LLP and another had made out a prima-facie case. The court also found that the balance of convenience lay in their favour and...