LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 26.05.2025
🔥📛 Delhi HC stays bank attachment seeking to recover tax demand like land revenue; Issues notice
➡️ The Delhi High Court has temporarily stayed the attachment of a taxpayer’s bank account, which was done to recover an outstanding GST demand of around ₹3.81 crores.
➡️ The Revenue initiated the recovery process by treating the GST demand like land revenue under Section 139 of the Land Reforms Act, 1954.
➡️ The petitioner claimed they were not served with a show cause notice (SCN) or the order that created the tax demand.
➡️ The High Court issued a notice in the matter and directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount.
➡️ Until further orders, the Court has stayed the letters sent by the Revenue to SBI and by SBI to the petitioner regarding freezing or attaching the petitioner’s bank account.
✔️ Delhi HC – Hitech Pipes Limited. vs Govt of NCT, Delhi & Ors [W.P.(C) 6947/2025]
🔥📛 Delhi HC’s interim relief to CCI; Commission contends it doesn’t conduct ‘business activity’
➡️ The Delhi High Court has issued a notice in response to a petition filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) challenging a GST demand of ₹10.35 crore raised by the Commissioner of CGST, Delhi.
➡️ CCI argued that as a statutory regulatory authority under the Competition Act, it does not engage in any commercial business activities and hence should not be subject to GST.
➡️ In support of its stand, CCI cited a previous judgment involving the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, where the Court held that similar GST demands were not legally sustainable.
➡️ The High Court acknowledged the legal precedent and took note of CCI’s claim that the GST demand is not applicable to regulatory bodies performing sovereign functions.
➡️ As an interim relief, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken against CCI and scheduled the next hearing for September 8, 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Competition Commission of India vs. The Additional Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors. [W.P.(C) 3402/2025]
🔥📛 HC directs Revenue to issue SOP ensuring consistency in procedure relating to SCN & Orders
➡️ The Delhi High Court directed the Revenue Department to develop and notify Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for consistent handling of procedural aspects such as service of Show Cause Notices (SCNs), orders, use of digital signatures, and addressing delays between issuing and uploading orders on the GST portal.
➡️ The case arose from a writ petition where the Petitioner challenged the proceedings, alleging discrepancies in the date of the order and its uploading, and claimed the action was time-barred.
➡️ The Court observed that although the order was dated April 2024, it was uploaded as Form DRC-07 only in May 2024, raising procedural concerns.
➡️ As an interim measure, the Court stayed any coercive action against the Petitioner while seeking a response from the Revenue.
➡️ The Revenue has been instructed to file an affidavit detailing both the facts of the case and the proposed SOPs, with the matter scheduled for further hearing in August.
✔️ Delhi HC – Khaleeque Ahmed. vs Superintendent CGST, Range -163 [W.P.(C) 6488/2025]
🔥📛 SC: Disposes off assessee’s plea over non-grant of cross-examination in GST evasion case
➡️ The assessee challenged a GST show cause notice that consolidated multiple financial years and included serious allegations of tax evasion.
➡️ The assessee requested to cross-examine certain individuals whose statements were used in the proceedings, but the request was denied, as the authorities claimed the statements were only supporting existing documentary evidence.
➡️ The Delhi High Court ruled that while the right to cross-examination is important, it is not absolute and can be denied if the evidence is merely corroborative and not central to the findings.
➡️ Despite upholding the denial of cross-examination, the High Court acknowledged that denial can lead to prejudice and emphasized the importance of assessing its impact in each case.
➡️ The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition but allowed the assessee to raise all contentions, including the issue of cross-examination, before the Appellate Authority, directing the Authority to consider them on their merits.
✔️ SC – Vallabh Textiles vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Tax [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13670/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Directs to adjudicate SCN independently without relying on audit report
➡️ The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued based on an audit report, which highlighted discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC) between the assessee’s records and their purchase register.
➡️ The Court observed that there seemed to be communication gaps between the assessee and the tax department, as the assessee claimed to have submitted all necessary documents, yet the department continued sending reminders.
➡️ The High Court directed the adjudicating authority to make an independent decision without being influenced by the audit report or memo.
➡️ It emphasized that the adjudicating authority must carefully consider the assessee’s reply to the SCN and assess the matter on its own merits.
➡️ Based on these directions, the Court disposed of the writ petition, ensuring a fair and impartial adjudication process.
✔️ Delhi HC – Infiniti Retail Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors. [W.P.(C) 12459/2024]
🔥📛 Non-issuance of SCN in Form GST DRC-01 not prejudicial where assessee had full knowledge through audit findings and summary: HC
➡️ The demand was raised based on an audit report for the period 2017–18, alleging that excess credit under ‘Cess’ was availed compared to what was allowed.
➡️ Only a summary of the show cause notice (SCN) was shared with the taxpayer along with the full audit report; the complete SCN itself was not issued.
➡️ Despite this, the court held that the absence of a formal SCN does not automatically invalidate the order if the principles of natural justice are not violated.
➡️ The petitioner was found to be fully aware of the allegations and had responded in detail, showing they were not denied a chance to defend themselves.
➡️ Since no prejudice or disadvantage was shown to result from not receiving the full SCN, the court decided not to set aside or remand the case unnecessarily.
✔️ Himachal Pradesh – Saluja Motors (P.) Ltd. v. State of H.P [CWP No. 2293 of 2024]
