LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 04.06.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC stays recovery against statutory body regulating architecture profession; Issues notice
➡️ The Delhi High Court has put a temporary hold on any coercive actions against the Council of Architecture, a statutory body that regulates the architecture profession in India.
➡️ The case involves a GST demand of approximately ₹9.95 crores made against the Council.
➡️ The High Court has decided to club this GST issue with an earlier pending case involving the Council’s service tax exemption.
➡️ In the earlier case, the CESTAT (Delhi) had affirmed exemption from service tax, but this decision has been challenged by the Revenue in the High Court.
➡️ The matter is now scheduled for the next hearing on September 16, 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Council of Architecture vs Commissioner of CGST, Delhi East and Others [W.P.(C) 8023/2025]
🔥📛 HC: No waiver of pre-deposit where there is ITC fraud through good-less invoicing
➡️ The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition that requested a waiver of approximately Rs. 16 lakhs as a pre-deposit for appealing four tax demand orders.
➡️ The demand orders included details of the tax imposed and the required pre-deposit amount.
➡️ The case involved serious allegations, including fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and issuing invoices without actual supply of goods.
➡️ The Court reviewed the facts and found no sufficient reason to exempt the petitioner from making the mandatory pre-deposit.
➡️ As a result, the Court refused to intervene and allowed the standard requirement of pre-deposit to stand for filing an appeal with the Appellate Authority.
✔️ Delhi HC – Rohan Aggarwal vs. Commissioner of CGST [W.P.(C) 8045/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Relegates Assessee to alternate remedy allegedly involved in circular trading; Dismisses writ
➡️ The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee challenging an order related to Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud amounting to ₹155 crores.
➡️ The assessee claimed a violation of natural justice, alleging that the department did not provide three opportunities for a personal hearing.
➡️ The Court clarified that Section 75(5) of the CGST Act only limits adjournments to a maximum of three but does not mandate granting all three; a fair hearing suffices.
➡️ Due to the case’s complexity, involving over 146 firms in a fraudulent ITC network, the Court emphasized the serious impact such frauds have on the GST system and public revenue.
➡️ Citing the Mukesh Kumar Garg case, the Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in matters involving large-scale ITC frauds due to their gravity and broader economic implications.
✔️ Delhi HC – MHJ Metaltechs Private Limited Vs. CGST, Delhi South [W.P.(C) 5771/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Writ by manager of firm, allegedly an accomplice in ITC fraud not maintainable
➡️ The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the manager of an assessee-firm accused of fraudulently availing substantial Input Tax Credit (ITC) using fake invoices without actual supply of goods, citing the petitioner’s lack of clean hands and the need for detailed factual examination.
➡️ The petitioner challenged the Show Cause Notice (SCN) on grounds of violation of natural justice, but the Court noted that no reply was filed to the SCN, nor was any evidence provided to show that genuine sales or actual supply of goods had occurred.
➡️ The High Court observed key evidence pointing to fraud, such as absence of transport records, existence of dummy firms, and a fake rent agreement, showing the petitioner failed to demonstrate bona fides.
➡️ The Court held that principles of natural justice were followed, referencing email communication where the SCN was found in the junk folder, and affirming that service of notices through email is a valid method.
➡️ Relying on Supreme Court precedents like Commercial Steel and recent judgments such as Mukesh Kumar Garg, the Court concluded that the case did not warrant invoking writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
✔️ Delhi HC – Aushta Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 6786/2025]
🔥📛 HC: No relief in high value fraudulent transactions considering serious nature of allegations
➡️ The Delhi High Court dealt with writ petitions involving a criminal lawyer accused of facilitating wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) by helping incorporate fraudulent firms, and sustained the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
➡️ The Petitioner challenged the DGGI proceedings on grounds such as non-receipt of notices and lack of opportunity for a personal hearing, but the Court found that the Petitioner was given opportunities, including tracked speed post notices, and failed to act.
➡️ The Court highlighted the serious nature of the allegations, noting the involvement of multiple co-noticees in fraudulent transactions and refused to grant relief under writ jurisdiction to avoid encouraging such frauds under the GST framework.
➡️ A DGGI status report revealed that the investigation began after high-value transactions were detected in four firms, and a list of 73 related cases with similar SCNs and orders was submitted, showing a broader fraudulent network.
➡️ The Court referred to its own ruling in Mukesh Kumar Garg on the limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and granted the Petitioner time until July 10 to file a statutory appeal with the required pre-deposit.
✔️ Delhi HC – Ramesh Kumar Wadhera vs. Deputy Director General of GST Intelligence & Ors. [W.P.(C) 5465/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Directs FIR against Petitioners over fabricated evidences/SCNs; Suggest tighter checks by Advocates
➡️ The Delhi High Court discovered that multiple writ petitions challenging GST registration cancellations were fraudulently filed by unauthorized individuals impersonating firm representatives, using fake affidavits, forged Aadhaar cards, and fabricated show cause notices (SCNs).
➡️ Initially, the Court had set aside the GST cancellation notices due to lack of reasons, but later recalled its order upon uncovering the fraudulent nature of the petitions.
➡️ Despite issuing non-bailable warrants, authorities failed to trace the Petitioners, and even their lawyer had only minimal information such as Aadhaar copies and a phone number.
➡️ During the hearings, the Oath Commissioner suggested photographing deponents during affidavit attestation to prevent similar fraud, leading the Court to recommend this measure to the Delhi Law Secretary and Union Law Ministry.
➡️ The Court directed all GST-related advocates to verify documents through the GST portal, dismissed all fraudulent petitions, and ordered FIRs to be registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
✔️ Delhi HC – S R Enterprises Vs Pr. Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, East Delhi [W.P.(C) 685/2025]
