SKG Metal Trading v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
SKG Metal Trading filed a writ before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 3895 of 2026, decided 23 July 2026, impugning an ex parte order confirming penalty for wrongful input tax credit. The assessee alleged non-service of the show cause notice and asserted that business had ceased with a registration cancellation application pending. The revenue disputed both service of notice and whether registration still subsisted, creating contested facts. Applying Article 226 principles and provisions including sections 74 and 169 of the CGST Act, the Court held that where such factual disputes exist, extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy; the assessee must pursue the statutory appellate channel. For limitation purposes, the period during which the writ remained pending was directed to be excluded from computing time to file appeal. The decision favoured the revenue on maintainability. This summary 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.74 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid involving fraud or suppression.
- CGST S.169 — Service of notice in certain circumstances, including portal upload.
- Constitution Art.226 — High Court writ jurisdiction for enforcement of rights and other purposes.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Shub Conductors LLP v. Joint Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi East Delhi
Shub Conductors LLP (W.P. (C) No. 4126 of 2025) sought writ relief against CGST show cause notice issued before SGST action on overlapping periods, citing Section 6(2)(b) bar on parallel proceedings. The High Court of Delhi on 5 August 2026 (Sections 6, 67, 74; Articles 226 and 227) held the bar was not attracted on the facts and jurisdictional objection could not bypass statutory appeal under Section 107. Writ interference was unwarranted; outcome favoured the revenue. Intelligence-driven dual notices require careful analysis of which authority leads and whether Section 6 actually prohibits sequential or overlapping investigation. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-08-05, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P. (C) NO. 4126 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.6, CGST S.74, CGST S.67. 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
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 revenue
Jaiwanti v. Union of India
Jaiwanti, as legal representative, challenged show cause and penalty proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund claims of a deceased person. The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 7254 of 2025, 25 September 2026) upheld the department’s action under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which permits post-death determination of tax, interest, and penalty to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Investigation and recovery against legal heirs were jurisdictionally valid; Article 14 and related provisions did not assist the petitioner. Outcome favoured the revenue. This contrasts with cases where notices are issued only in the deceased’s name without proper representation procedure. For estate planning and GST compliance, Section 93 mechanics are central. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-25, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P.(C) NO.7254 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.93, CGST S.73, CGST S.74. 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; 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.
In favour of the assessee
Venspra Impex v. Deputy Commissioner ST
Venspra Impex filed Writ Petition No. 26359 of 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 16 September 2026, against a single composite assessment order under section 74 of the CGST Act covering multiple tax periods in one Form GST DRC-07. Following consistent doctrine of the bench, the Court ruled that each tax period requires distinct notice and adjudication; consolidated assessment is unsustainable and undermines appellate remedies and period-wise limitation analysis. The impugned consolidated order was set aside with liberty to the department to issue separate notices and pass separate orders for each period if so advised. The decision favoured the assessee and aligns with other Andhra Pradesh judgments on multi-period demands. This summary is for professional awareness only and is not legal advice.