Blog Categories
Subscribe to Newsletter
Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.
Knowledge Portal
Click here to explore deep insights, FAQs, and comprehensive tax guides.
Explore Now
M/s Mahavir Metal House vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North (Delhi High Court, 2025)
Facts of the CaseThe petitioner, M/s Mahavir Metal House, filed a writ
petition under Article 226 challenging an Order-in-Original dated 01.02.2025
passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi North.The impugned ...
M/s Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Pvt. Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi-West (Delhi High Court, 2025) – Double Demand on Input Tax Credit under Section 74 CGST Act
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, M/s Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand
Confectioner Pvt. Ltd., operates a sweetmeat shop along with a small
restaurant facility. The dispute arose from a Show Cause Notice dated
05.08.2025 a...
M/s Jasmeet Trading Company vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North (2025) – Delhi High Court | Writ Not Maintainable in Fraudulent ITC Cases under Section 107 CGST Act
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, M/s Jasmeet Trading Company, filed a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging
an Order-in-Original dated 01.02.2025, issued by the Respondent
authority....
M/s Rohtas Trading Co. vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North (2025) – Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ in ITC Fraud Case; Alternate Remedy under Section 107 CGST Act Emphasized
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, M/s Rohtas Trading Company, filed a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the
Order-in-Original dated 01.02.2025, passed by the Respondent authority. The
impu...
Directorate General of GST Intelligence vs Rakesh Kumar Goyal (Delhi High Court, 2025) – Bail Cancellation in GST Fraud Case under Section 132 CGST Act
Facts of the CaseThe case arose from allegations of large-scale GST fraud
involving fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims amounting to crores of
rupees. The Respondent, Rakesh Kumar Goyal, was accused of being invol...
Fraudulent ITC Allegations & Maintainability of Writ Petition: Remedy Lies Under Section 107 CGST Act – Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), CGST Delhi
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, registered under the VAT regime as M/s
Samyak International, was later allotted a provisional GST registration
upon the introduction of GST. The Petitioner contended that such registrat...
RSA Impex LLP vs Commissioner of DGST & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2025) – Ex-Parte GST Order Set Aside for Non-Consideration of Reply & Denial of Hearing under Section 73 read with Section 168A CGST Act
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, RSA Impex LLP, challenged:
A Show
Cause Notice dated 31.05.2024, and
A final
adjudication order dated 20.08.2024,
wherein a demand of ₹13,38,244 was raised.Key factua...
Bhupender Kumar vs Additional Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST Delhi North & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2025) (Penalty under Section 122(1A) CGST Act – Fake ITC Fraud – Writ Not Maintainable – Alternative Remedy under Section 107)
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, Bhupender Kumar, a GST consultant,
challenged an adjudication order imposing a massive penalty (approx. ₹285
crore) for alleged involvement in fraudulent availment and passing of Inpu...
M/s Sisla Laboratories vs Deputy Commissioner of CGST (Delhi High Court, 2025) (Refund under Section 54 CGST Act – Non-communication of SCN – Missing Deficiency Memo – Right to Appeal Preserved)
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, M/s Sisla Laboratories, filed two
refund applications under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 for different tax periods:
Refund
Application dated 17....
Utkarsh Arora (Prop. M/s Aura Interior Hardware) vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North: Delhi High Court Declines Writ in Fake ITC Case under Section 16, 107 & 122 CGST Act
Facts of the CaseThe present writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the Order-in-Original dated 27 January 2025,
whereby a demand of ₹1,14,114 along with penalty was raised...