Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
Rohit Vij (W.P.(C) No. 13848 of 2021) obtained setting aside and remand from the High Court of Delhi on 22 September 2026. An adverse Form DRC-07 was passed without personal hearing despite Section 75 and Rule 142 requiring hearing on request or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated. The order was unsustainable. The adjudicating authority must pass a fresh decision after effective personal hearing. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Delhi benches consistently police hearing compliance in DRC proceedings. Registered persons should formally request hearings and preserve proof when SCN signals confirmation of demand. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-22, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in W.P.(C) NO. 13848 OF 2021. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, CGST Rules R.142. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.75 — General provisions relating to determination of tax.
- CGST Rules R.142 — Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Ragini Communication v. Union of India
Ragini Communication argued before the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 3640 of 2025, 3 September 2026) that no valid Section 73 notice was served for alleged wrongful ITC. Records showed service of a detailed demand-cum-show-cause notice for the relevant period under Rules 142 and Section 75. The writ under Article 226 was dismissed as unfounded on the notice issue; proceedings were not without jurisdiction. Residual grievances were relegated to appeal under Section 107. Outcome favoured the revenue. Assessees claiming non-service must prove portal or physical service records carefully; consolidated DRC-01 with substance may suffice in Gauhati. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-03, High Court of Gauhati recorded in favour of the revenue in WP(C) NO. 3640 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST Rules R.142, CGST S.75. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Rajat Dalmia v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue
Rajat Dalmia (W.P.A. No. 1031 of 2026) succeeded before the High Court of Calcutta on 9 July 2026 against West Bengal GST proceedings. Form GST DRC-01 omitted date, time, and venue for personal hearing and marked those fields as not applicable, effectively denying hearing under Sections 73 and 75 read with Rule 142. Assessment and demands founded on the defective notice were vitiated and set aside with liberty for fresh proceedings after proper hearing opportunity. Outcome favoured the assessee. Portal-generated DRC-01 templates must not leave hearing slots blank where adverse action is proposed. Procedural rigour protects assessees at the show-cause stage. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-09, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee in W.P.A. NO. 1031 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.75, CGST Rules R.142. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Southern Steels v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Southern Steels, which operated two GST registrations, challenged invocation of the extended limitation period before the Madras High Court in consolidated writ petitions decided on 8 June 2026. Department inspection had revealed circular transactions and fictitious input tax credit on non-supplies across the registrations. The assessee argued procedural defects in proceedings tied to the Erode registration. The Court, referring to sections 74 and 75 of the CGST Act and Rule 142, held that prima facie findings of fraud or collusion justified extended-period invocation for both registrations, and that procedural requirements for the Erode registration had been duly followed. It emphasised that the threshold for invoking extended limitation under the GST regime is lower than under earlier indirect tax laws. The writs were dismissed, favouring the revenue. For CA reference only; not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 10213 of 2025, judgment dated 29 September 2026) declined to interfere at the show-cause stage in proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Rules 101 and 142. Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd., a medicine distributor, challenged a show cause notice and the appropriation of amounts deposited during audit, alleging coercion, limitation errors, incorrect computation, and lack of jurisdiction. The bench held that statutory adjudication had already commenced and the notice had not finally determined tax liability. Objections—including whether payment was voluntary—were matters for the adjudicating authority after reply and hearing. Premature writ relief was unwarranted. The outcome favoured the revenue; the assessee was left to pursue its defences in the pending adjudication.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal
Arup Datta (Calcutta High Court, WPA 17892 of 2026, 24 September 2026, Sumita Das De, J.) challenged demand of tax, interest and penalty under Sections 73 and 75 where show cause notice and ex parte adjudication order were uploaded on GST portal without direct intimation. Petitioner filed reply yet received no personal hearing before order-in-original, violating audi alteram partem embedded in Section 75(4) scheme and fair service expectations under Section 169 context. Court quashed impugned adjudication and directed reconsideration after effective hearing with communicated schedule. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. West Bengal portal-service cases increasingly scrutinize ‘additional notices’ tabs and silent ex parte orders. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.