Delay In Filing Certified Copy Of Impugned Order Doesn't Render Appeal Filed Electronically U/S 107 CGST Act Time-Barred: Delhi HCCase title: Chegg India Pvt Ltd v. UoI & Ors.Case no.: W.P.(C) 1062/2024The Delhi High Court has held that delay in filing certified copy of impugned order in an appeal preferred by Assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017...
Case title: Chegg India Pvt Ltd v. UoI & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1062/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that delay in filing certified copy of impugned order in an appeal preferred by Assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would not render the appeal time-barred, if it was filed online within prescribed time. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma reasoned,
“the condition to physically file the certified copy of the impugned decision/order is not mandatory…where the certified copy was submitted with a delay, may be condoned if the online filing was completed within the prescribed limitation period. Ultimately, what is to be borne in mind is the fact that online filing was within limitation…In most Courts and Tribunals, online filing and electronic filing is now prescribed mode and the Courts are moving towards technologically advance systems. It would be retrograde to opine that online filing, which was complete in all respects, including electronic copy of the order, is not valid filing.”
Case title: Shri Balaji Enterprises v. Additional Director General New Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11207/2023
The Delhi High Court has cautioned the Customs Authorities against keeping show-cause notices pending in call-book only to take them up after several years, leaving the assessee in lurch.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma observed that in the absence of any “glaring impossibility”, such an approach of the authorities would not be permissible. In the case at hand, Petitioner challenged the delay of almost eight years in adjudication of the show-cause notice issued to it in 2015.
Case title: M/S G.S Industries v. Commissioner Of Central Tax And Gst, Delhi (West)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13149/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a Commissioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 cannot, in purported exercise of its powers under Section 107(2), sit in appeal over an order passed by the Appellate Authority.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma ruled, “The Commissioner, while seeking to review an order passed under the Act and in purported exercise of powers vested by Section 107(2), cannot possibly sit over and above an order passed by the appellate authority.”
Case title: Bonanza Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7510/2024
The Delhi High Court recently called upon the Customs Department to make use of Section 153(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 which empowers it to serve notices through email. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma said such an approach will prevent delay and non-appearances, leading to expeditious disposal of matters.
“In the opinion of this Court, the provision itself makes it clear that notices can be sent by email…The Customs Department ought to in future follow a system by which in addition to notices by speed post, registered post or courier, notices are also sent on the email address which is provided on the letterhead of the Petitioner or any authorised person. This would avoid substantial delay and matters proceeding ex-parte as has happened in the present case,” it said.
Case title: Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Superintendent Of Customs, Epm, Import & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 149/2025
Based on a circular issued by the Finance Ministry, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that the Customs Department cannot encash the bank guarantee furnished by a trader, whose import/export transactions are in dispute, if the latter has made a pre-deposit with his appeal against the demand and penalty.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “A perusal of the Circular and the clauses extracted above would show that no coercive measures can be taken against the Appellant during the period when the limitation for filing of the appeal has not expired. In addition, if the pre-deposit has already been made the remaining amount cannot be recovered by encashment of the bank guarantee.”
Case title: Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v. The Additional Director Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence (Dggi) & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10680/2024 and connected matters
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that amounts received by the Electricity Regulatory Commissions under the heads of filing fee, tariff fee, license fee, annual registration fee and miscellaneous fee are not exigible to tax.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma thus allowed the petitions filed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as well as the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission against the show cause notices issued to them by the GST Department. It observed, “We find ourselves unable to accept, affirm or even fathom the conclusion that regulation of tariff, inter-State transmission of electricity or the issuance of license would be liable to be construed as activities undertaken or functions discharged in the furtherance of business.
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Delhi High Court has urged the Central government as well as the Customs department to review the Baggage Rules, 2016 which regulate the amount of gold or gold jewellery that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “While, there is no doubt that any illegal smuggling of gold deserves to be curbed, at the same time, bona-fidely and genuine tourists/travellers, including people from Indian Origin such as the OCI Cardholders, PIOs etc., could be travelling for social engagements in India or social events such as marriages etc., with gold, which could be of a much higher value than the permissible limits.
Case title: Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Gst And Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12142/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 129 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 which pertains to detention, seizure and release of goods while in transit cannot be invoked for imposing penalties for minor breaches, like incomplete e-way bill.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar further held that Section 129 cannot, merely by virtue of its non-obstante clause, be construed to have an overriding effect on Section 126 which interdicts tax officers from imposing any penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements.
Case title: Commissioner Of Customs Air Chennai-Vii Commissionerate v. M/S. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: CUSAA 38/2023
Coming to the rescue of an IT distribution company, the Delhi High Court has held that the import of Wireless Access Points (WAPs), which operate on MIMO technology, are exempt from Customs duty.
In doing so, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the word “and” used between 'MIMO and LTE Products', which are eligible for exemption under the relevant notification issued by the Centre, is disjunctive.
Case title: KBS Industries Ltd & Anr. v. The Customs Central Excise And Service Tax Settlement Commission Principal Bench New Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10505/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that an order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 is in the nature of a 'settlement' and cannot be accepted by a trader only in part.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Given the nature of the order passed under Section 127C of the Act – which is in the nature of a settlement – it would not be permissible to dissect the same and accept that parts of the order which are favourable to the applicant while rejecting the other directions which are not. The order of Settlement Commission must be accepted in entirety.”
Case title: Vijay Enterprises & Anr v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5809/2024
The Delhi High Court has set aside a final order of penalty passed by the Customs Department against a paper trader for alleged undervaluation of imported goods, stating that the same was passed during pendency of challenge to the show cause notice (SCN) issued to the trader.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “passing of the impugned Order-in-Original while the impugned SCN was under challenge before this Court would amount to initiation of parallel proceedings rendering the scrutiny of the Court as infructuous.”
Case title: M/S Om Gems And Jewellery v. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex Nscbi Airport & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6218/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once a court of law directs the Customs Department to release the bank guarantee furnished by a trader, the Department cannot turn around and say that the amount will be adjusted towards the final demand order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “the Division Bench judgment had to be complied with and the Customs Department could not hold back compliance thereof by directing adjustment in the final order. Such a course of action would not be permissible.”
Case title: Anjali Pandey v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10482/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that foreign nationals coming to India need not declare to the Customs Department their gold jewellery which they are carrying for bonafide personal use.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma further held that the Customs Department must make a distinction between 'jewellery' and 'personal jewellery', while seizing items for violation of the Baggage Rules, 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case title: M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs Acc(Import)
Case no.: CUSAA 9/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department, the Central GST Department, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI) to make sure that counsel representing them on advance service are instructed properly.
A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the Commissioner of Customs to prepare an SOP as to the manner in which the Department shall ensure that instructions are given to the nominated Counsels in the matter when advance copies are served.
Case title: Rocktek Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12489/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the imposition and severity of conditions imposed by the Customs Department for permitting provisional release of seized goods is “discretionary” in nature.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma scaled down the alleged onerous condition imposed on an importer, for executing a Bank Guarantee of 130% of the deferential duty.
Case title: Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs and connected matter
Case no.: CUSAA 35/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person facing charges under the Customs Act, 1962 does not have an unfettered right under Section 138B, to cross-examine the informant or person making incriminatory statements. Section 138(B) of the Customs Act of 1962 deals with the admissibility of statements made during customs proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma relied on Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others (1983) where a Coordinate bench of the High Court observed that if any information is received from a statutory authority and an adjudicating process is initiated, there is nothing in law which compels the information provider to be involved in the judicial proceedings or warrant him/her for cross examination.
Case title: M/S Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I, Department Of Trade And Taxes And Anr and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14279/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that since Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes an “independent regime” to determine the limitation period for filing statutory appeals, the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “The facility to seek condonation can be resorted provided the legislation does not construct an independent regime with respect to an appeal being preferred. Once it is found that the legislation incorporates a provision which creates a special period of limitation and proscribes the same being entertained after a terminal date, the general provisions of the Limitation Act would cease to apply.”
Case title: Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15973/2024
The Delhi High Court recently ordered the Customs authorities to release a traveller's gold worth over ₹14 lakh and other branded articles like iPhone, PlayStation, etc. over the authority's failure to issue him a show cause notice.
The Department on the other hand contended that an oral SCN was given to the Petitioner, who also signed an undertaking that he does not want a written SCN or even a personal hearing. The High Court observed that such signing of a standard form of waiver by the Petitioner would not be in compliance with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the waiver under Section 124 has to be “conscious” and “informed”.
Case title: M/S Aims Retail Services Private Limited v. Union Of India & Ors. and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9461/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that merely unlocking/ activating a new mobile phone by disabling the “regional lock” which is put by original equipment manufacturers to restrict usage to a specific geographical location, does not make the mobile phone a “used” good.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma thus held that exporters of such mobile phones will also be eligible to claim duty drawbacks.
Case title: Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1807/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department must ensure that the intimation of disposal of detained or confiscated property is given to the concerned party both via email as also the mobile number.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma reasoned this will ensure that a party who succeeded in Court or Tribunal against the detention of the property is not deprived of their properties.
Case title: Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Commissionerate, Gst Delhi West v. M/S Alkarma
Case no.: SERTA 3/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if a show cause notice is quashed by a higher authority on one issue, it doesn't mean that other issues raised in the SCN are not liable to be adjudicated.
The observation was made by the bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma in a case where the SCN was quashed by another division bench of the High Court so far as the issue relating to duty on free supply of materials was concerned. However, the CESTAT proceeded to discharge the entire SCN.
Case title: Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2030/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that authorities making a traveller waive show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc. under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962, on a mere proforma, is not lawful.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma thus granted relief to a permanent resident of Hong Kong, whose Rolex wristwatch valued at ₹30,29,400/- was confiscated by the Customs Department at the airport.
Case title: Daljeet Singh Gill v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4644/2021
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a trader whose application for availing the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 over service tax dues was declined by the GST Department “without providing any reason”.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed that in the absence of proof of service of notice upon the trader, prior to his making an application for dispute resolution, it cannot be presumed that any investigation was pending against him.
Case title: MR Makhinder Chopra Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2049/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Baggage Rules 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act 1962 to ensure that every passenger entering India passes through a Customs check has limited application on foreign tourists coming to India.
While holding so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the release of a Russian national's gold chain, valued at about Rs. 7 lakhs, which was confiscated by the Customs Department when he arrived in India.
Case title: Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 934/2023
In big relief to Indigo airlines, the Delhi High Court has held that an additional levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on re-import of aircraft parts that were repaired abroad, is unconstitutional.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed that “additional duty even after the transaction has been subjected to the imposition of a tax treating it to be a supply of service would be clearly unconstitutional and cannot be sustained.”
Case title: Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1142/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide whether levy of tax on the services purchased by a prepaid subscriber of Tata Teleservices, using the existing mobile balance on which tax was already paid, would amount to double taxation.
Considering that the matter would involve factual evaluation of the manner in which services are provided and charged by the company, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta relegated it to the Tribunal.
Case title: M/S DD Interiors v. Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 877/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was dealing with a petitioner preferred by M/s DD Interiors, challenging the return of its appeal by CESTAT, stating that since the deposit was in a wrong account, credit cannot be given.
Case title: Sentec India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 868/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute a payment in the nature of customs duty under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, the period of limitation for seeking a refund of customs duty under the provision would not apply qua EDD. Section 27 deals with a person/entity's claim for a refund of Customs duty in certain circumstances.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “A perusal of Section 27 would show that the same deals with refund of customs duty. It is abundantly clear that EDD is not in the nature of customs duty. The deposit of the EDD was itself to secure any customs duty which may have been later on found to be payable, due to the allegation of underdeclaration. However, when the said allegation has been disproved and the Department has taken a view that there was no under-declaration, the substratum of the deposit of EDD itself no longer exists.”
Case title: Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2690/2025
The Delhi High Court recently expressed its displeasure at the frequent non-appearance of government counsel in customs related matters. A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,
“It is noticed that in a large number of customs matters, the Counsels are either not appearing or appear without proper instructions. In cases of nonappearance, the Court is compelled to request Standing Counsels present in Court to accept notice. This reflects a clear lack of coordination between the Department and the learned panel of Standing Counsels. Such a practice is highly undesirable and leads to gross wastage of judicial time.”
Case title: M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7741/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that an assessee must be issued notice within six months of seizure of its goods under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, failing which the goods must be returned by the Department.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar further held that the period of seizure cannot be extended under Section 67)7) for a further six-month period without giving notice to the accused.
Case title: JSD Traders LLP v. Additional Commissioner, GST
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2608/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order cancelling GST registration of a trader with retrospective effect will not sustain unless the show cause notice preceding such decision reflects both the reasons and the authority's intent for retrospective cancellation.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “in the absence of reasons having been assigned in the original SCN in support of a proposed retrospective cancellation as well as a failure to place the petitioner on prior notice of such an intent clearly invalidates the impugned action.”
Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15199/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter's goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in 'suppression of facts' from the Department.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “Based on the set of facts as they presented themselves, both parties are entitled to make contesting claims. However, a genuine disagreement, as in the present case, of the classification of the goods cannot possibly be elevated to 'suppression'.”
Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15199/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued.
Section 28 relates to recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. It provides for two separate types of notices: One under Section 28(4) where elements of collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression are made out in assessee' conduct. The other under Section 28(1) where the elements of Section 28(4) of the Act are absent. “Meaning thereby that it is only in those circumstances where Section 28(4) of the Act is not attracted that a Notice under Section 28(1) of the Act is issued,” a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.
Case title: Amirhossein Alizadeh v. The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3002/2025
The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs Department to release the silver-coated gold chains of an Iranian national, which were confiscated on his arrival in India almost three years ago.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the prescribed period of six months for issuance of a Show Cause Notice had already elapsed. Further, no personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, who sought the release of his jewelry, and no final order was served on him till date.
Case title: M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 114/2025
The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of a Company engaged in the sale of various pharmaceutical products and medical devices, holding that it could not be denied Input Tax Credit on purchases merely because its supplier had mentioned a wrong GST number on the invoices.
In the facts of the case, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The only basis for rejecting the ITC is the mention of the Bombay office GSTN instead of the Delhi office GSTN. Substantial loss would be caused to the Petitioner if the credit is not granted for such a small error on behalf of the supplier.”
Case title: Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2784/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the personal jewellery of a minor from UAE who had come to India to attend a relative's wedding.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the direction after perusing a photograph, depicting that she used to wear the said pieces of jewelry since childhood. It observed, “This Court has now pronounced several orders/judgments, following various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, wherein it has been held clearly that if the gold items seized are personal jewellery, the same would not be liable to be confiscated.”
Case title: Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3042/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department to scrupulously comply with its “repeated” direction to serve notices, orders on an assessee under the Customs Act, 1962 via email.
Traditionally, correspondence related to any violation of the Act is made via post. However, with advent of technology and to avoid delays, Court had in Bonanza Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr. (2024) called upon the Department to send notices via email, in addition to service by speed post, registered post or courier.
Case title: Mea Ame Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3200/2025
The Delhi High Court is set to examine the extent of jurisdiction which can be exercised by the Customs Department under the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta have sought the authority's response on a private company's petition challenging seizure of its imported “empty atomizer devices” purportedly to be put to use for smoking de-addiction.
Case title: M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7295/2021
The Delhi High Court recently quashed a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) communication cancelling the license issued to a trader involved in import and export of goods, citing almost fifteen years delay in culminating the show cause notice.
Justice Sachin Datta cited Vos Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (2024) where the Delhi High Court had emphasized that matters which have the potential of casting financial liabilities of penal consequences, cannot be kept pending for years and decades together.
Case title: Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2957/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that a non-resident Indian is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an “eligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016 for the purposes of Customs on arrival to India.
Eligible passenger was defined by the Finance Ministry via a Notification dated June 30, 2017, to mean a passenger of Indian origin or a passenger holding a valid Indian passport, coming to India after not less than six months of stay abroad. Baggage Rules allow duty-free clearance of certain items, including used household articles, professional equipment, and personal effects to eligible passengers.
Case title: Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 530/2025
The Delhi High Court recently took a critical view of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi for repeatedly passing contradictory orders in an appeal, which should have been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
“This order reveals a complete comedy of error…The petition reveals an unfortunate situation wherein the CESTAT while intending to correct an error in its initial order…continued to make repeated errors resulting in the impugned order and the present challenge,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta remarked at the outset.
Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release 'Name Engraved' Gold Jewellery Of Indian Tourist
Case title: Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3347/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold kada of an Indian tourist, which was seized upon his return to the country after a visit to the Republic of Mali.
Petitioner had argued that the jewellery was a personal effect, as evident from engraving of his first name on the same, and was thus exempted from duty. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered that the jewellery be released within four weeks.
Case title: Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6235/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944, which empowers taxing authorities to recover duties not levied/ short-levied or short-paid, is pari materia to corresponding provisions of the Customs Act, the Finance Act and the CGST Act.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus held that the High Court's judgment in M/S VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (2024) is applicable to the said provision.
Case title: Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3431/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that writ petitions challenging the determination of anti-dumping duties by Directorate General of Trade Remedies are maintainable however, since the determination is a time bound process, Courts will not readily interfere in the process.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, "while the writ petitions cannot be held to be not maintainable at the stage of the disclosure statement, the Court would be hesitant and reluctant in exercising jurisdiction as determination of anti-dumping duty is a time bound process which is to be exercised by the designated authority."
Case title: Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2760/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 which prescribes a period of six months. Further, subject to complying with certain formalities, a further extension for a period of six months for the Department to issue a show cause notice can be given in terms of Section 110(5).
Case title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11518/2024
The Delhi High Court has called upon the Customs Department to clone the required data from seized electronic devices of persons allegedly involved in smuggling and other violations under the Act, instead of retaining such devices throughout prosecutions.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that such a practice will not only ensure that the Department does not lose the data due to the seized device getting outdated but it will also provide make the data readily accessible to the investigation officers.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited
Case no.: CEAC 3/2024
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal interdicting the GST Department from invoking extended period of limitation for recovery action against a sub-contractor who did not pay service tax amid confusion as to his liability to pay the same.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta upheld the CESTAT order which held that bonafide belief of the sub-contractor that he was not required to discharge service tax liability cannot be ruled out amid prevailing controversy.
Case title: Vedanta Limited v. CBIC
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3675/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to pass a “reasoned order” on Indian multinational mining company- Vedanata's plea claiming duty drawbacks on clean energy cess, paid between the year 2010-17.
The plea was rejected by CBIC through a “cryptic order” citing limitation despite its own Instruction clearing air on eligibility of drawbacks on clean energy cess, with retrospective benefit to pending cases, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted.
Case title: Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3711/2025
The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for acting against its own Circular for expeditious clearance of goods, by detaining the export goods of a trader for over two months.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “This position is completely unacceptable to the Court…consignment cannot be held up in this manner…expedited steps are not taken for clearing of goods.”
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
Following successive judgments of the Delhi High Court criticising the Customs for detaining personal jewellery of air travellers and failure to comply with mandatory statutory procedure for detention, the Department has undertaken various steps to prevent harassment of genuine travellers.
In its affidavit, the Department submitted that a detailed stakeholder consultation is currently being carried out by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs and some time will be required to amend the Baggage Rules. Meanwhile, the above steps are being implemented.
Case title: Ramdiya Verma v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4004/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to ensure that relevant CCTV footage is preserved whenever it receives a complaint from any traveller coming to India from abroad, regarding illegal detention of his foreign currency by its officials.
“...if a complaint was received in this manner, the CCTV footage ought to be preserved immediately as the same is available only for 30 days. Moreover, the CCTV footage of the Petitioner at the time of departure could also have been preserved to determine whether the Petitioner was wearing a gold kada or not at the time of departure. Therefore, in such cases, immediate action ought to be taken when such a complaint is received,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said.
Delhi VAT | No Interest On Refund For Period Of Delay Attributable To Dealer: High Court
Case title: Lithium Urban Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Value Added Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4925/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that if the delay in granting refund to a dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is attributable to the dealer itself, such period of delay shall be excluded for the purposes of awarding interest on refund. Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of DVAT Act stipulates a period of two months for refund of excess tax, penalty, etc., if the period for refund is a quarter.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Explanation to Section 42(1) of the DVAT Act and observed, “If the delay in granting the refund is attributable to the said person (dealer), whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which the interest is payable.”
Case title: M/S Raj International v. Additional Commissioner Cgst Delhi West & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4096/2025
The Delhi High Court has flagged the rise in number of GST related cases being filed before it and to ensure expeditious disposal of cases, particularly those arising out of procedural issues, has asked the Department to depute at least two officials from its litigation section.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said these officials can coordinate with the various Commissionerates of the GST department and give instructions to the Department's counsels, in an expedited manner.
Case title: HVR Solar Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 67 & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4506/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that in terms of proviso 3 to Section 161 of the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, an order rejecting the rectification application filed by an assessee cannot be passed without first hearing the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta further said that the hearing can be dispensed with only where the rectification application is allowed.
Case title: Shalender Kumar v. Commissioner Delhi West CGST Commissionerate & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3824/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes twin conditions for Revenue holding back Refund due to an Assesseee, despite an order to that effect.
Section 54(11) of the Act would show that the refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the following two conditions – (i) when an order directing a refund is subject matter of a proceeding which is pending either in appeal or any other proceeding under the Act; and (ii) thereafter the Commissioner gives an opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue.
Case title: M/S Impressive Data Services Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax Gst, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4662/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that it has no discretion to allow a prayer seeking waiver of pre-deposit condition prescribed under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for preferring an appeal under the statute. In terms of Section 107(6), insofar as the admitted tax, interest or penalty is concerned, the entire amount would have to be deposited. In so far as the disputed amount is concerned, 10% of the tax would have to be deposited as a pre-deposit along with the appeal.
The division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that Section 107(6) “ does not give discretion for waiver of the pre-deposit.”
Case title: Exide Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4822/2025
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand of over ₹12 crores raised on storage battery manufacturer Exide Industries, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Indian multinational for “laxity” in responding to the repeated hearing notices issued by the Department.
Case title: Ms Stesalit Limited & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3138/2025
The Delhi High Court will soon decide the GST rate applicable to roof-mounted air conditioners of specific designs manufactured for the railways.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta are seized with a petition filed by railways and aerospace technology company StesaLIT Limited, challenging a Circular issued by the Union Finance Ministry in 2024, stipulating that above said AC units shall be classified under HSN 8415 (which attracts 28% GST) and not HSN 8607 (which attracts 18% GST).
Case title: M/S Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Ltd Additional Commissioner (Adjn.) v. CGST Delhi North & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2178/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Adjudicating Authority under Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 to undertake fresh adjudication of the show cause notice issued to an assessee, raising demand of more than ₹10 crores.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta did so after noting that such a “substantial” demand was made without even considering the assessee's reply.
Case title: M/S Brijbihari Concast Pvt. Ltd. (Through Its Director Sh. Rajeev Agarwal) v. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Meerurt Zonal Unit (Through Its Additional Director General) & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8433/2024
The Delhi High Court has asked the GST authority not to prejudice the business of an assessee, involved in manufacturing of mild steel products, by attaching its complete bank account pending adjudication of ₹15.09 crores tax evasion proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that one year had elapsed since the provisional attachment order was passed but no show cause notice was issued.
Sikh People Usually Wear 'Kada', Personal Effect: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Detention By Customs
Case title: Dalvinder Singh Sudan v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5136/2025
Observing that Sikh persons usually wear kada as part of their religious practice, the Delhi High Court set aside the detention of a Dubai resident's gold kada by the Customs Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Clearly, a perusal of the photographs and the fact that it is one Kada which is usually worn by persons like the Petitioner who are Sikhs, leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the same was a personal effect of the Petitioner.”
Case title: Haris Aslam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4962/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department cannot sit over an appellate body's order directing it to release the goods of an assessee, merely on the ground that the Department seeks to prefer a revision against such order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, “once the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has also allowed redemption, the decision to file revision cannot be a ground to withhold the release of the goods. Further, there is no stay which has been granted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).” Also Read - Delhi HC Sets Aside Reassessment Over Cash Deposits During Demonetisation, Says Order U/S 148A(d) Income Tax Act Transgressed Notice U/S 148A(b)
Case title: Bhavna Luthra L/H Of Sh. Narain Das Luthra, Proprietor Of M/S. Hunny Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, Range 8, CGST, Delhi & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4551/2025
The Delhi High Court recently recorded the “harrowing experience” that a widow had to go through for obtaining a refund from the GST Department. The GST registration of the firm owned by her now deceased husband was cancelled in view of his death. However, his widow sought a refund of ₹10,45,793/- balance in the electronic cash ledger of the firm. The said application was rejected by the Department and subsequently, the amount was debited from the Ledger without either being paid to the petitioner or being re-credited in the Ledger.
“It is a matter of concern that almost a year ago, the same Petitioner had appeared before a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which, after considering the matter, directed that the refund amount be re-credited within a period of two weeks. It is unfortunate to see that despite the said amount being in the Electronic cash ledger, the refund has not been given to the Petitioner till date,” Court said.
Case title: M/S. Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4576/2025
While dealing with a case under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017, the Delhi High Court has held that though cross-examination can be granted in certain proceedings if it is deemed appropriate, the right to cross-examine cannot be an unfettered right.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The rationale behind setting aside an order/judgment on the grounds of non-provision of the right to cross-examine is to safeguard the affected party from being prejudiced due to non-providing of cross examination. Therefore, such reasoning presumes/implies the existence of prejudice. In other words, if the alleging party fails to prove any substantial prejudice caused to it due to such non-provision, it shall not have the inherent right to set aside such an order/judgment.”
Case title: Rajbir Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4496/2025
The Delhi High Court has flagged the rampant misuse of the Central government's Duty Drawback Scheme by various exporters. The said duty drawbacks are claimed under Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however noted that the Scheme has become the subject of misuse by some traders/ exporters who make fraudulent exports merely with a view of availing the benefits under the scheme.
SCN Uploaded On 'Additional Notices' Tab Of GST Portal Not Proper: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S Gmt Garments v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5304/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that uploading of show cause notice by the GST department under the 'additional notices' tab on its portal is not proper as the assessee may miss it. The decision is a contrast to a coordinate bench decision rendered in July last year, holding that uploading of notices under the heading 'additional notices' amounts to sufficient service.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, Also Read - Delhi High Court Dismisses BSNL's Appeal U/S 37 Of A & C Act, Upholds Arbitral Award Of Rs. 43.52 Crore “the notice if uploaded on the additional notices tab of the portal, the same would not be proper in as much as the party would not have even acquired knowledge of the same.”
Case title: Anand Mehta v. Director General Of Foreign Trade
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5669/2014
The Delhi High Court has held that unless specific allegations which discuss the role of a director in the export performance are made, there is no question of finding the director personally liable for non-fulfilment of export obligations by the company.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju relied on Santanu Ray vs. Union of India where the Supreme Court discussed vicarious liability of directors.
Case title: M/S Montage Enterprises Private Limited (Through Its Authorized Representative Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Ors. v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4774/2025
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Noida based firm allegedly involved in GST fraud of over Rs. 550 crores. In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were unappreciative of the Petitioner's conduct in responding to the Department's proceedings.
The High Court said, “A perusal of the reply filed by the Petitioner, would show that the Petitioners all along had all the requisite information to reply to the SCN, however, it chose not to file the same for almost six months. It was only when the personal hearing notice was given, due to the imminent expiry of the limitation period for passing the order, that the Petitioners have chosen to file a reply. The Petitioner only then raised objections in respect of RUDs and non-grant of opportunity for cross-examination. The Petitioners have, clearly, not been diligent in this matter.”
Rule 86A CGST Rules | Credit Ledger Can't Be Blocked For More Than One Year : Delhi High Court
Case title: Shri Sai Ram Enterprises v. Pr. ADG, DGGI, Gurugram & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5438/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered unblocking of an enterprise's Electronic Credit Ledger following the lapse of one year since its initial blocking.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which lays down the conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger. It prescribes that the credit ledger of an assessee cannot be blocked beyond the period of one year.
Case title: M/s Jai Opticals v. GNCTD
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5300/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Goods and Services Tax authorities are expected to empathetically consider an assessee's request for adjournment of personal hearing on medical grounds. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said the Department should not proceed to pass adverse orders in such matters.
The development comes in a petition filed by an optical firm, claiming that impugned order raising demand of approximately Rs.1.5 crores was passed by the Delhi GSt Department despite requesting for an adjournment of personal hearing on the ground that its proprietor suffered from a brain stroke and was not in a position for a hearing.
Case title: Gurudas Mallik Thakur v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5083/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the penalty for GST evasion contemplated under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, can be imposed on 'any person'— whether taxable or non-taxable.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus differed from the Bombay High Court's decision in Amit Manilal Haria V. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE & Ors. (2025) which held that Section 122(1A) cannot be invoked against an employee as he is not a 'taxable' person.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5846/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee cannot claim he was not granted an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed, if he fails to check the GST portal for show cause notice and respond to the same.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Since the Petitioner has not been diligent in checking the portal, no reply to the Show Cause Notice has been filed by the Petitioner. Thus the department cannot be blamed.”
Case title: M/S Mahesh Fabrinox Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6006/2025
The Delhi High Court has criticized the “pattern” of persons, who either availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit or enabled the availment of fraudulent ITC, invoking Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge orders imposing penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017, on technical grounds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta further observed, “This Court also takes note, with some consternation, that such large scale fraudulent availment of ITC without actual passing of goods or services may, if left unchecked, can lead to severe damage to the GST framework itself, which is meant to encourage legally entitled persons and businesses to avail of ITC and other similar facilities such as drawbacks etc.”
Case title: Mukesh Kumar Garg v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5737/2025
The Delhi High Court has once again flagged concerns over rampant misuse of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 by traders, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that while the provision is meant to enable ease of doing business, it has been coming across many cases where this facility under Section 16 of the CGST Act has been misused by various individuals, firms, entities and companies to avail of ITC even when the output tax is not deposited or when the entities or individuals who had to deposit the output tax are themselves found to be not existent.
Case title: SDMC v. Moon Steeland General Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9986/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of an 'Industrial Building' cannot be restricted merely to traditional notions of manufacturing involving tangible and physical goods.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav rather held that an 'Industrial Building' encompasses IT sector businesses where non-material inputs such as data, digital content, or intellectual capital are subjected to systematic transformation or reconstitution into new intellectual property outputs, such as software, algorithms, digital products, or proprietary databases.
Case title: M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5901/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order in rectification proceedings must be reasoned, passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dealing with a petition against rejection of Petitioner's application seeking rectification of impugned demand order.
Case title: M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8028/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that demand raised against an assessee qua reversal of availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and qua utilisation of ITC prima facie constitutes double demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted liberty to the Petitioner-assessee to approach the Appellate Authority against such demand, and waived predeposit qua demand of ineligible ITC.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5846/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if an assessee fails to respond to a show cause notice duly communicated to it on the GST portal, the Department cannot be blamed for passing an order raising demand, without hearing the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Since the Petitioner has not been diligent in checking the portal, no reply to the Show Cause Notice has been filed by the Petitioner. Thus the department cannot be blamed.”
Case title: SS Enterprises Vs Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5684/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of maximum three adjournments that can be granted to a taxpayer during the course of adjudication proceedings, cannot be construed to mean that the taxpayer must be given a minimum of three hearings.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “A perusal of Section 75(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would show that the said provision merely contemplates that the maximum adjournments shall be given for three times but does not in effect mean that three hearings have to be given.”
Case title: Pret Study by Janak Fashions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5878/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a demand order passed by the GST Department without hearing the assessee, after noting that the assessee itself was not diligent in responding to the show cause notice or attending the personal hearing despite notice.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Considering the fact that (i) The Department has given the show cause notice and the personal hearing notices to the Petitioner; (ii) The Petitioner has not been diligent; the Department cannot be held to blame for not giving a proper hearing.”
Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited
Case no.: SERTA 5/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appeal from CESTAT under the Central Excise Act 1944 involving the issue of taxability will lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ruled that such an appeal, even on a limited point of limitation, will not lie before the High Court under Section 35G.
It observed, “Even if the question of limitation has been raised, the Court has to go into the merits of the matter after a decision on the question of limitation is made. The maintainability of the appeal would have to be examined on the said benchmark…The obvious conclusion would be that if this Court holds that the SCN was within the limitation, the issue of taxability would have to be gone into.”
Case title: M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8788/2025
Coming to the rescue of an importer, the Delhi High Court has set aside the security of ₹10 crore (approx) demanded by the Customs Department for provisional release of its perishable goods.
Calling the condition 'onerous', a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered provisional release of Petitioner's imported Roasted Areca Nuts on furnishing bond of Rs.4.10 crore along with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 lakh.
Case title: Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9269/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold jewellery which was seized from a Muslim woman while she was returning from a religious pilgrimage to Mecca.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it is normal practice in our country for women to wear basic jewellery and the same cannot be seized by the Customs Department only on the ground that it is of 24 carat purity.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Customs (ACC Imports) Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: CUSAA 66/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs authority cannot, in absence of some evidence, decline refund of excess duty paid by a trader when the latter furnishes certificates from a qualified chartered accountant in support of its case.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus dismissed the Department's appeal against Nokia. Nokia sought refund of excess duty paid on import of mobile handsets. While the goods were exempted by the Central government vide a notification issued in March 2015, Nokia said it had paid additional duty of customs at the rate of 6%.
Case title: M/S MJ Bizcrafts LLP Through Partner Rajender Kumar v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South Commissionerate Through Its Commissioner & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9061/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that once an appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and pre-deposit is made, there is “automatic stay” of the impugned order raising demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus interdicted the bank from attaching the account of an assessee, who had preferred an appeal against demand. It observed, “A perusal of Section 107(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the judgments relied on, would show that once an appeal is filed and pre-deposit is made, there is automatic stay of the impugned order. In view thereof, the attachment of the bank account is not sustainable.”
Case title: Bhupender Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9141/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 122(1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can be imposed retrospectively, provided the show cause notice had been issued to the assessee when the provision was introduced.
Section 122 contemplates penalties for certain offences under the GST Act, including fraudulent availment of input tax credit. Section 122(1A) was introduced by the Finance Act 2020 and came into effect on 1 January 2021. It prescribes that any person who retains the benefit of wrongfully availed ITC, etc. and at whose instance such a transaction is conducted, shall be liable to penalty.
Case title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11021/2025
The Delhi High Court has pulled up the GST Department for harassing a tax lawyer, by raiding his offices and seizing his files and electronic gadgets, in connection with alleged GST evasion by one of his clients.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that unless the Department has some material to indicate the lawyer's involvement in alleged tax evasion, it cannot take such steps against him.
Case title: Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4853/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that consolidated show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST is not only permissible but necessary, to unearth wrongful availment of ITC over a span of period.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one financial year and the supply may be shown in the next financial year. It is only when either are found to be fabricated or the firms are found to be fake that the maze of transactions can be analysed and established as being fraudulent or bogus.”
GST Refund Can't Be Granted To Trader Until Cancelled Registration Is Restored: Delhi High Court
Case title: Shree Radhe Vallabh Traders v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate, New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6768/2023
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that GST refund cannot be granted to a trader whose GST registration stands cancelled. In the case at hand, the Petitioner's registration was cancelled in February 2023 with retrospective effect from July 2018.
In this backdrop a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “When the GST registration itself has been cancelled in 2018, obviously, no refund can be granted till the said GST registration of the Petitioner is restored.”
Phrase 'Three Months' U/S 73(2) GST Act Means Three Calendar Months, Not 90 Days: Delhi High Court
Case title: Tata Play Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4781/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the 'three months' period prior to expiry of three years within which show cause notice for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit must be issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, means three calendar months and not 90 days.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “While the purpose behind Section 73(10) of the CGST Act is to fix the date by which an adjudication order has to be issued, the purpose of Section 73(2) of the CGST Act is to ensure that at least three months is available to the taxable person for filing a reply to the show cause notice issued to them and for being heard in a proper manner…the expression 'three months' has to be reckoned and interpreted as three calendar months and not as 90 days.”
Case title: Shri Sarabjeet Singh , Proprietor Of M/S Khurana Associates v. The Commissioner Of SGST, Delhi SGST & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10392/2025
The Delhi HIgh Court has held that once a trader prefers an appeal against a demand raised by the GST Department and makes the mandatory pre-deposit, the demand order is automatically stayed and the trader cannot be treated as a defaulter.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted relief to the Petitioner-proprietorship firm and directed the Department to process its request for a fresh GST registration.
Case title: Shamina v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7230/2025
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a woman whose 998 purity (equivalent to 24 karat) gold jewellery was treated as prohibited goods under the Baggage Rules 2016, and absolutely confiscated by the Customs Department on her return to the country.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “On the aspect of personal effects and jewellery, the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that because of the purity, the same cannot be considered as personal jewellery as it is prohibited goods. This is contrary to the settled law.”
Case title: Ganpati Polymers Through It Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11906/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with a GST demand raised against a trader, who failed to either appear for personal hearing or even file a reply.
Though the trader sought to contend that reply could not be filed as he is not a frequent visitor to the GST portal, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar said, “It is a matter of practice of the GST Department that the notices for personal hearing and notices for replies to be filed are all uploaded on the GST Portal. The Petitioner was well aware of the complete investigation that was going on against him and such callous conduct on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be condoned by the Court where the Petitioner chooses not to even participate in the proceedings in any manner whatsoever.”
Case title: Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12199/2025
The Delhi High Court recently observed that usually there is a gap between the passing of a demand order by the GST Department and uploading of Form DRC-07 (summary of order) on the official portal.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain however refused to infer such a gap as rendering the demand order time-barred, in view of the fact that the demand was served upon the assessee in question via email.
Case title: M/S ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: CUSAA 35/2024
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over alleged import of counterfeit iPhones, stating that such imports not only affect brand owners but also adversely affect consumer welfare— as old and used products could get re-branded as new ones.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus observed, “Consumers in India may be made to pay more for used, second hand or counterfeit products under the impression that they are original branded products. Such imports also have an impact on the brand equity and goodwill of the original manufacturers in India.”
Case title: Manish Goel HUF v. The Commissioner Delhi Goods And Services Tax Trade And Tax Department New Delhi And Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11626/2025
The Delhi High Court recently expressed its disapproval with the GST Department for rejecting a trader's application for retrospective cancellation of his GST registration on medical grounds, and later cancelling his registration with retrospective effect.
Stating that this approach reflects a “complete non-application of the mind”, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain directed the Department to adjudicate both the issues afresh.
Case title: Omega QMS v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11815/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power to withhold refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 cannot be exercised by the Department in absence of an appeal against the refund order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus observed that refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the two conditions – "(i) when an order directing a refund is subject matter of a proceeding which is pending either in appeal or any other proceeding under the Act; and (ii) thereafter the Commissioner gives an opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue."
Case title: Ashiya v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12487/2025
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a Muslim woman whose gold bangles were seized by the Customs Department on return from Mecca and were withheld despite an order of the Adjudicating Authority, directing release.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that merely because the Department plans to seek a review of the order for return, as upheld by the Appellate Authority, is not grounds to withhold the return of seized articles.
Case title: Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Gst Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9139/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allegations of misuse of a trader's GST identification number by a third party cannot be probed by the GST Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for certain offences which the GST Department can take cognizance of. However, the allegation here is that the GST number of the Petitioner has been misused by a third party, who is unknown. In the opinion of this Court, under such circumstances where the allegation of the Petitioner is that there is an impersonation of the Petitioner's credentials, the matter ought to be investigated by the Economic Offences Wing.”
Case title: Mitraj Business Private Limited Through Its Director Mr Manoj Kankane v. Union Of India Represented By The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12907/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to consider whether some “preferential treatment” ought to be given to Start-ups and MSMEs in terms of timelines, warehousing and provisional release in cases of misdeclaration of goods, especially in case of low value consignments.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that considering the prevailing policy in India to encourage start-ups and MSMEs, the Customs Department also needs to be sensitized to ensure that such parties are given some consideration, especially, when the goods are not prohibited goods.
Case title: Gurpreet Singh Sonik v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13229/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot exceed the limitation period prescribed for issuance of show cause notice after detention of goods, merely on the ground that the person from whom goods were seized did not appear for appraisement.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “non-appearance for appraisement does not stop the limitation for the issuance of the SCN in terms of Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.”
Case title: Uday Jain & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner Customs Air Cargo And Import & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13092/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the artwork of Padma Bhushan awardee Late BC Sanyal, seized amid a dispute surrounding its valuation.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed there is no conclusive proof that the artwork was made in Pakistan, as claimed by the Department. “The bill of entry itself reveals that the import is being effected from Dubai,” it observed.
Case title: Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General) v. M/S Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Ltd
Case no.: CUSAA 111/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that a Customs Broker must diligently perform its responsibilities under the 2018 Licensing Regulations however, any failure thereof must be met with a proportionate punishment.
While dealing with a case where the broker's license was suspended due to alleged failure to oversee warehousing of goods meant for re-export, leading to their sale in the domestic market, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “There is no doubt that Customs Brokers do have significant responsibility under the CBLR (Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations) 2018 which ought to be performed with diligence and commitment. The fact that the Respondent did not oversee the clearance and the warehousing of the goods leading to diversion of the goods in the domestic market is a clear infraction.”
Case title: M/S Tecmax Electronics v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Case no.: CUSAA 121/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of pre-deposit for preferring an appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is mandatory and the forum has no power to admit any appeal without the same.
However, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further added that the High Court may, in rare circumstances, waive off the said deposit. It observed, “CESTAT does not have the power to admit appeal without the pre-deposit, however, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction may waive the same in rare circumstances, on a case to case basis.”
Case title: Sonaram Bagadaram Mali v. The Commissioner Of Custom & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13649/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that misleading consumers about locally manufactured goods by labelling them as 'Made in China' or in some other foreign country is contrary to public interest.
The bench was dealing with a Customs case whereby Petitioner's goods (mobile tempered glass) bearing 'Made in China' mark were seized by the Department in a raid.
Delhi High Court Directs Customs Department To Set Up Passenger Grievance Counters At Delhi Airport
Case title: Imran v. Commissioner Of Customs, IGI Airport
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10651/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Customs at the IGI Airport to create some counters of the Department outside the airport's security zone, for easy access of aggrieved passengers.
The direction was made by a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain after the Petitioner, a resident of Kuwait whose gold cut piece was seized by the Department, complained that since the counters of the Customs Department are in the secured area, it is not easy to access them for making representations.
Case title: Mushlina v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14324/2025
The Delhi High Court has flagged the Customs Department's regular non-appearance in an appeal preferred by an aggrieved traveller whose articles were confiscated at the airport. The passenger further faced consistent non-implementation of the relief orders passed by the Appellate Authority. The court also allowed the release of the articles while upholding the order of the appellate authority.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further noted that in cases where the Department prefers revision against the appellate order, like in this case, it does not keep the traveller in the loop, making them wait endlessly.
Case Title: Genesis Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi East
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13821/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued directions safeguarding the right to privacy in GST search proceedings, stating that any family-related CCTV footage which violates the privacy of family members cannot be used or disseminated in any manner.
“Some of the concerns which are raised by the Petitioners such as right to privacy of the family being violated, etc., deserve to be addressed. Clearly, any family-related CCTV footage which is with the GST department and violates the privacy of family members cannot be used or disseminated in any manner,” stated the bench consists of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain.
One Rolex Watch Can Be For Personal Use, Not 'Commercial Quantity': Delhi High Court To Customs
Case title: Mahesh Malkani v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14402/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that one Rolex watch seized by the Customs Department from an air passenger cannot be called 'commercial quantity'. It thus cautioned the Department's Adjudicating Authority against “error” on its part, in declaring the same as commercial.
“Clearly, this Court is of the view that one Rolex watch cannot be held to be a commercial quantity and there is no reason as to why the same cannot be kept for personal use,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed.
Case title: Union of India v. Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14723/2025
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has jurisdiction to hear challenges to notifications issued by the Central Government, imposing Anti-Dumping Duty.
Prior to Finance Act 2023, Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which is the governing provision for appeals before CESTAT, conferred jurisdiction on CESTAT to hear appeals against 'order'. However, post amendment vide Section 134 of Finance Act, the power is circumscribed to appeals against 'determination or review'. Hence, the question before the High Court is whether only 'determination or review' finding of the DGTR can be challenged before CESTAT or also the 'order' of its acceptance by the Finance Ministry.
Case title: M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13194/2018
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when GST rates applicable on a given product are reduced by the GST Council, its benefit should trickle down to the end consumer by reduction in prices of such products.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that letting manufacturers increase the quantity of the product while charging the same MRP will defeat the purpose of rate-cuts.
Case title: M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13194/2018
The Delhi High Court has held that an authority constituted under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can order businesses to reduce their prices following reduction in GST rates applicable to their products.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that such authority can also impose penalty or cancel GST registration of those in default, in extreme cases.
Case title: M/S Dart Air Services Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7116/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that the Commissioner of Customs can impose a penalty on a courier service which fails to report suspicious consignments being sent or received from abroad.
A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that courier agencies have a responsibility to ensure that whenever there are any suspicious courier packets being delivered or being transacted through them, due diligence ought to be exercised and if there is any suspicion, the same ought to be reported to the concerned authority.
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Customs Department recently informed the Delhi High Court that the Draft Baggage Rules (amending Baggage Rules, 2016) have been finalized and are ready to be issued.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were further informed that the Department is awaiting upgradation of IT infrastructure, for effective implementation of the new rules.
Case title: M/S A. L. Exports Through Its Proprietor Arsh v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15025/2025
The Delhi High Court recently came across a peculiar case relating to Input Tax Credit refund claim, whereby a notice for personal hearing was issued to the trader, after the Appellate Authority rejected its plea.
A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain flagged the glitch in the Department's portal, which generated a personal hearing notice after the passage of the final order.
Gauhati HC
Case Title: Naser Ali Mondal v The State of Assam and Ors
Case Number: WP(C)/4157/2025
The Gauhati High Court held that merely attaching tax determination statement to Drc-01 summary cannot be treated as a valid show cause notice.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi stated that “…a formal and duly authenticated SCN is mandatorily required to initiate proceedings under Section 73. The Statement of tax determination under Section 73(3), which is attached to the summary cannot be treated as a valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in conformity with law.”
Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rejection Of AAI's ₹9.34 Crore CENVAT Credit
Case title: AAI v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 643/2024
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the GST authority rejecting CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.9.34 crores claimed by the Airport Authority of India.
A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the central authority had failed to furnish documents in support of its claim and said, “there is no jurisdictional error or arbitrary exercise of power in the passing of the adjudication order which warrants interreference under writ jurisdiction.”
Case title: Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Delhi East & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4987/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that a Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) need not correspond to each individual transaction and it may reflect a period as a whole, provided that the overall benefit being claimed is fully substantiated by the total foreign exchange remittance. FIRC is issued by bank as proof of international payments for exports.
A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “FIRCs need not match transaction by transaction and could even be on a periodic basis, so long as the total benefit that is being claimed by a party is fully supported by the foreign exchange which has been remitted to such party.”
Delhi High Court Orders Economic Offences Wing To Probe Alleged Forgery Of Customs Stamps At Airport
Case title: Ms. Puja Jayant & Ors. v. Commissioner Of Customs, IGI Airport
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13995/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police to conduct an enquiry into alleged forgery of Customs stamps at the Delhi International Airport.
A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction after the Department claimed that the Customs stamp on an air traveller's representations in connection with their seized gold was fake.
Delhi High Court Asks GST Appellate Tribunal To Examine 'Profiteering' Allegations Against Tata Play
Case title: Tata Play Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14422/2022
The Delhi High Court recently asked the GST Appellate Tribunal to re-look into the profiteering allegations levelled against DTH services provider Tata Play.
The direction was made by a division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain while dealing with the company's appeal against the show cause notice and consequential order passed against it by the erstwhile National AntiProfiteering Authority (NAPA).
Case title: Megha Engineering And Infrastructure Ltd v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3479/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that the Finance Act 2021, which retrospectively abolished the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), responsible for enabling compromise between the state and its tax payers, cannot create a void. For context, the Finance Act 2021 envisaged replacing the ITSC with a body known as the Interim Board of Settlements from 01.02.2021. However, the Act came into force on 01.04.2021.
Thus, the question before the Court was whether settlement applications made in the interregnum, at which point there was no amendment of the statute, can be denied acceptance/processing by way of a retrospective amendment.
Case title: Purshottam Ray v. Principal Commissioner Of CGST & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15118/2025
In order to avoid duplication of GST cases, the Delhi High Court has asked its Registry to add a new field for filing of writ petitions to record DIN (Document Identification Number) and date of order being challenged.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction on observing that multiple writ petitions were being filed challenging same impugned orders, especially in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC (Input Tax Credit).
Case title: All India Confederation Of The Blind (AICB) v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9971/2025
The Delhi High Court recently questioned the Central government for effectively withdrawing GST concessions granted to differently-abled persons on purchase of cars. A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao asked the standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter and respond by December 17.
The Court was dealing with a petition moved by All India Confederation Of The Blind (AICB) challenging a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Heavy Industries reducing GST rate on vehicles from 28% to 18%, without granting any special concessions for the differently-abled.
Unsigned GST Demand Order Valid If Accompanied By DRC-07 Bearing Officer's Details: Delhi High Court
Case title: Future Consumer Limited v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15611/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned GST demand order is valid, if the same is accompanied by DRC-07 which contains the details of the official who passed the order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with a petition moved by Future Consumer Limited, challenging the demand order on the ground that it does not bear the signature of the official who has passed the order.
S.107 GST Act | Taxpayer Can't Ignore Order Merely Because Copy Was Illegible: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15509/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a taxpayer cannot ignore an order passed against it and uploaded on the GST portal, merely because copy of the order was allegedly illegible.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus refused to condone the taxpayer's delay in filing appeal against a GST demand order merely on the ground that the order supplied to it was illegible. It observed, “The contention of the Petitioner is that the Order-in-Original dated 04th February, 2025 is not a legible order. If so, the Petitioner had a duty to approach the Department and obtain a legible order, if the Petitioner cannot completely ignore the fact that it had received a copy and had not filed an appeal challenging the same.”
Delhi High Court Directs Customs To Ensure Strict Implementation Of Minimum Import Price On Soda Ash
Case title: Alkali Manufacturers Association of India v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11521/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs authorities to ensure strict implementation of the Minimum Import Price (MIP) imposed by DGFT on Soda Ash, warning of stringent action in case of any violations.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain gave “clear directions to all the Customs Authorities…to ensure that the Notification No. 46 of 2024-25 along with Notification No.23 of 2025-26 shall be implemented strictly in letter and spirit. If any Commissionerate of Customs, are found permitting imports in violation thereof, would be liable for stringent action in accordance with law.”
Case title: M/S Balaji Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15237/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee is entitled to copies of the data stored on its electronic devices which are seized by the GST Department, unless the same is prejudicial to the probe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “A perusal of Section 67(5) of the CGST Act clearly shows that copies of the seized data cannot be denied to the Petitioner. However, such copies can be made in the presence of an Authorised Officer, unless it is recorded in writing, that providing copies would be prejudicial to the investigation.”
Case title: Amit Kumar Basau & Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 13 (Special Zone) Zone 12 Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15327/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 is not an embargo to suits filed by unregistered firms, if any statutory or common law right is being sought to be enforced.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 has an embargo on an un-registered firm from filing a suit or any proceeding for enforcement of a right. However, the exceptions to the said provision are carved out in Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Anr. (2000).”
Case title: Nitco Logistics Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Case no.: CUSAA 56/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a Customs Housing Agent is responsible for the actions of its employees and it must exercise due diligence in supervising their activities.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that a CHA may be held accountable for the wrongdoings of its employee but, the punishment in that regard has to be proportionate.
Renting/Leasing Residential Premises For Use As Residence Exempt From GST: Delhi High Court
Case title: Mr. Gurdev Raj Kumar v. Collector Of Stamps (Government Of Nct Of Delhi)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1463/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that GST cannot be levied on renting/ leasing of residential premises for use as residence.
Justice Sachin Datta clarified thus while dealing with a plea to quash an order passed by the Collector of Stamps directing the petitioner to pay allegedly deficient stamp duty on a lease deed executed with a private company, in respect of a residential property in city's Vasant Vihar area.
Case Title: Techsync v. The Superintendent of Customs SIIB ACC Imports and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 3542/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) to conduct inter-ministerial consultation in respect of coming up with a uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of products declared as 'body massagers' or sex toys.
The bench opined that the question as to whether any product is obscene or not cannot, obviously, be left at the discretion of the Commissioner of Customs and other individual officials in the absence of uniform guidelines for consistent practice in this regard.
Case title: M/s Vedanta Ltd v. ACIT Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16378/2025
In granting relief to Vedanta Limited, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the the Income Tax Department for initiation of reassessment action against the Copper manufacturer, over alleged fraudulent availment of Input tax credit worth over ₹424 Crore.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that the GST Department had already closed the case. “Closing of the proceedings by the GST Department would have an impact and bearing on the Section 148A proceedings and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter deserves to be remanded for reconsideration, in view of the GST order dated 11th July, 2025,” the judges said.
Case title: Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 105, Zone 4, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16555/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 61(2) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 bars further action against an assessee, including any demand under Section 73. For context, Section 61 empowers the proper officer to scrutinize the return furnished by the registered person and inform him of the discrepancies noticed. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that in case the explanation offered by the registered person is found to be acceptable, no further action shall be taken.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that since Section 73, which pertains to determination and recovery of tax, does not have a non-obstante clause, it comes within purview of Section 61(2) and thus, issuance of demand on the same ground on which the explanation was in fact found acceptable previously, would not be tenable.
Informer Of GST Evasion Cannot Seek Reward As A Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court
Case title: XY v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15498/2025
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that an informer, who apprises the Department about evasion of goods and services tax by an entity, cannot seek reward for sharing such information as a matter of right.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were of the prima facie view that no such right vests in any informer. “In the opinion of this Court, the grant of an award or a reward to an informer is a discretionary grant,” it said.
Case title: Gameloft Software Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax, Range 152 & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16315/2025
The Delhi High Court has called upon the Goods and Services Tax Department to expeditiously process the refund applications filed by registered persons/ entities.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “As per the statutorily prescribed procedure, the refund applications have to be dealt with in a particular manner within the prescribed timelines as per law…if there is delay by the Department in processing and granting refunds, it has a cascading adverse effect on the business of the tax payers as well.”
Communication On Email Address Is Sufficient Service Under Section 169 GST Act: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/s Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2394/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that under Section 169(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, a communication sent to an email address provided at the time of GST registration is adequate service of a decision, order, summons or notice or any other communication.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “With respect to Section169 of the Act, this Court has also taken a view recently in W.P. (C) 4374/2025 titled Rishi Enterprises through its Proprietor v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, North & Anr. that communication on the email address is sufficient communication.”
Case title: Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16869/2025
The Delhi High Court has clarified that a traveller, whose goods are seized by the Customs, is not liable to pay a redemption fine or penalty for the release of goods if the Department failed to issue a show cause notice within the statutory timeframe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain observed, “It is the settled position in law, after Union of India &Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja (/2024) that without a SCN under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods of the Petitioner would be liable to be unconditionally released…In view of the above decision, the Petitioner is entitled to unconditional release of the goods subject to payment of applicable Customs Duty. No redemption fine or penalty would be liable to be paid by the Petitioner and no interest would be liable to be charged.”
Case title: Raj Kumar Gupta v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15917/2025
The Delhi High Court recently slammed a trader, allegedly involved in clandestine manufacture of pan masala to evade tax and recovery of ₹70 lakh from his premises, for his failure to cooperate in the probe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain in this backdrop upheld the GST Department's order, denying the Petitioner-trader's right to cross-examination. It observed, “the right to cross-examination is not an unfettered right…the non-filing of a reply to the SCN and the repeated adjournments which have been sought by the Petitioner…leaves no manner of doubt that the Petitioner has not co-operated with the Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner's case, in the opinion of this Court, is prima facie not bona fide.”
Case title: M/S Shiva Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, GNCTD
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13977/2025
In an unusual turn of events at the Delhi High Court, an “innocuous” petition filed by a trader seeking cancellation of its GST registration unravelled fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit worth lakhs.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the trader, ₹2 lakh of which would go to the Delhi High Court Bar Association, ₹2 lakh to the GST Department and remaining ₹1 lakh to the Sales Tax Bar Association.
Case title: M/S Swarn Cosmetics (India) v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16532/2025
The Central Goods and Services Tax Department recently explained to the Delhi High Court the process its officers follow when uploading any show cause notice or order on the GST portal. The explanation was tendered in response to a plea filed before the Court, challenging the legality of a demand order on the ground that the impugned SCN and the impugned order were not duly signed either physically or digitally.
The Department now uses digital keys to upload orders on the GST Portal, and without the digital key of the concerned officer, the orders as well as the SCNs cannot be uploaded.
Case title: Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukund Maheshwari v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16455/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Courts must, while dealing with cases involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, balance the interest of trader with that of burden on State exchequer due to tax evasion.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC…there are complex transactions involved which require factual analysis and consideration of voluminous evidence, as also the detailed orders passed after investigation. In such cases, it would be necessary to consider the burden on the exchequer as also the nature of impact on the GST regime, and balance the same against the interest of the Petitioners, which is secured by availing the right to statutory appeal.”
Case title: BSNL v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: CUSAA 166/2025
The Delhi High Court has allowed BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) to belatedly challenge the Rs. 12,63,01,812/- imposed upon it by the Customs Department for misdeclaration of imported goods.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the public autonomous service provider showed no valid justification for the delay in approaching CESTAT however, “considering the fact that there was a voluntary declaration by B.S.N.L., prima facie there appears to be some merit in the contention of the B.S.N.L., that it is entitled to be heard on merits.”
Case title: C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi-South & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15508/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the time limit set out under 73(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act for issuance of show cause notice in relation to alleged short payment of tax, etc. is mandatory in nature, and cannot be excused on account of technical glitches on GST portal.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus quashed a SCN issued after the 3-month gap prescribed under the provision.
Case title: Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16214/2025
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that the Delhi Development Authority cannot levy GST on conversion of property from leasehold to freehold.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Prime facie, it clearly appears that conversion is nothing but a part of the process of sale of the immovable property by the DDA to purchasers and GST would not be liable to be charged on such conversion in terms of Section 7(2) of the CGST Act itself.”
Case title: GMG Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence HQ & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16259/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with an order passed by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) provisionally attaching the bank accounts of a trader.
The provisional attachment was challenged on the ground of competency of the officer to pass such an order. Petitioner had argued that in terms of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 only the GST Commissioner can order provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases.
Case Name: Puneet Batra vs. UOI & Ors.
Case No. : W.P.(C) 11021/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in the application by the GST Department seeking the handing over of the parsed hard drives of the seized Central Processing Unit (CPU) of an advocate, which is in possession of the IT Officers of the Court, for further examination.
In doing so, the Court has instructed the presence of representatives from both sides, including a Court officer, and directed the submission of parsed data and hard drives to the Court.
Case title: M/S IMS Mercantiles Ltd v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15527/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticised the GST Department for demanding tax on the total turnover of a company, despite figures of the actual sales being available with it.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The Court finds a fundamental flaw in the approach of the Adjudicating Authority that, though the actual sales of the entire combo packs, on both B2B and B2C sales was available with the Adjudicating Authority, the GST is being demanded on the total turnover…The tax evasion, if any, is in respect of B2B and B2C sales. There is no reasoning given by the Adjudicating Authority, as to why GST is being sought to be levied on the total turnover.”
Case title: Sushil Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs [Export]
Case no.: CUSAA 81/2019
The Delhi High Court recently refused to show any leniency to two employees of a Customs House Clearing Agent (CHA), found involved in smuggling of cigarettes worth Rs.3,40,74,000/-.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that CHAs and their employees are responsible to ensure discharge of obligations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
Case title: Varian Medical Systems International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1064/2025
The Delhi High Court has quashed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to a company before conducting audit, holding that the authorities violated principles of natural justice by issuing the SCN before expiry of time granted to respond to the pre-SCN.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “the Petitioner was given time to file submissions till 28th November, 2024…However, surprisingly, the authority has decided to issue the SCN itself one day before the said day expires i.e. on 27th November, 2024 itself. Thus, this would be completely in violation of the principles of natural justice in terms of the pre-SCN itself. Accordingly, the SCN is set aside.”
Case title: Manoj Kumar Nagar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16970/2025
Stating that Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act, the Delhi High Court refused to waive the pre-deposit for appeal by certain Customs Housing Agents against ₹30 crore penalty imposed upon them over import fraud.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The clear position is that the Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act as also the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The CHA ought to perform the same with diligence and commitment. In the present case, permitting misuse of the CHA licence, that too after receiving monthly remuneration for the same shows that the license itself has been sub-let without any control over the same.”
Case title: Myratgeldi Mammedov v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2685/2021
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain the writ petition moved by a Turkmenistan national, alleging that the Indian Customs Department had illegally arrested him in connection with alleged gold smuggling back in 2018.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that the Department had produced the seized gold jewellery in a sealed cover and the same, upon inspection, could not be termed as 'personal effect' of the Petitioner.
Case title: Commissioner of Customs v. Ravi Dhanwariya
Case no.: CUSAA 162/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered forfeiture of ₹2,00,000/- out of the ₹5 lakh security deposit made by a Customs Broker at the time of obtaining license, citing allegations of duty drawback fraud against it.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with an appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Customs against a CESTAT order, restoring the Respondent-broker's license and setting aside forfeiture of security deposit.
Case Name: Aadhar India vs. The Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16727/2025
The Delhi High Court, while examining whether pre-consultation prior to a GST Show Cause Notice was mandatory or discretionary, granted interim relief to Aadhar India by permitting the proceedings arising from the Show Cause Notice dated 29 November 2024 to continue, but directing that any final order passed pursuant thereto should not be given effect without further orders of the Court.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, heard a writ petition on the constitutional validity of Notification No. 79/2020- Central Tax dated October 15, 2020 (Notification) issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The Notification amended Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by making pre-consultation to the Show Cause Notice under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, discretionary and unlike the previous regime in which it was held to be mandatory.
“Gross Concealment”: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On Party In Poppy Seeds Smuggling Case
Case title: Manish Sharma v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17242/2025
The Delhi High Court recently imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the power of attorney holder of a company, purportedly involved in smuggling of prohibited items like poppy seeds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner had failed to disclose that his challenge to the penalty order passed by the Customs authority was previously dismissed by the Court.
Delhi High Court Quashes VAT Assessment Orders Passed By Audit Officer Citing Lack Of Jurisdiction
Case title: H.G. International v. The Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes, Delhi (and batch)
Case no.: ST.APPL. 63/2014 (and batch)
The Delhi High Court has quashed a batch of VAT assessment orders issued by VAT Audit Officer, stating that the authority did not have necessary delegation to carry out assessments.
Form DVAT-50 enables the VAT Commissioner to authorize officials for carrying out audit, investigation and enforcement functions under Delhi Value Added Tax Act and Rules. However, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that no such authorization was made in favour of VATO (Audit) before 15th October, 2014.
Case Name: Sakshi Goyal Proprietor of MIS Parshavnath Industries vs. Principal Commissioner CGST
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15169/2025
The Delhi High Court, in a matter concerning retrospective cancellation of registration despite having amended place of business, directed “The GST Department may re-inspect the new premises of the Petitioner and obtain a physical inspection report.”
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain stated that the officials of the GST Department ought to have re-inspected the new premises for Show Cause Notice proceedings to continue. It was also noted that present petition was limited to retrospective cancellation of the GST registration.
Case title: M/s RBC Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17106/2025
The Delhi High Court has set aside the demand raised against a stock broker, noting that both the show cause notice as well as the final order were bereft of any reasons, disabling the broker to make effective representation.
“It is seen that the SCN actually does not give any reasons…Even the impugned order does not give any reasons,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed.
Case title: Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10189/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus held that Global Opportunities Private Limited will be entitled to claim GST refund on export of services under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Reconsidering Cap On Value Of Gold Jewellery Permitted At Airports: CBIC To Delhi High Court
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has informed the Delhi High Court that it is considering increasing the cap on the value of gold that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.
Currently, the Baggage Rules 2016 permit any jewellery of 20 grams with a value cap of Rs. 50,000/- in case of a man and 40 grams with a value cap of Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of a woman to be cleared free of duty.
Case title: Delhi Sales Corporation v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15646/2025
The Delhi High Court recently allowed Delhi Sales Corporation to deposit pre-SCN penalty contemplated under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, despite issuance of show cause notice under Section 74(8).
This, after a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner-Corporation had already deposited tax and interest in terms of Section 74(5).
Case Detail: A AND T Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST Delhi, West
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17723/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a writ petition against the Show Cause Notice by the Customs Department, instead of the GST Department, for recovery of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to about Rs. 5 lakhs from the exporter.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has listed the matter for February 24, 2026 while observing that “However, insofar as the question as the inter-play between the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the IGST Act and CGST Act is concerned, the matter requires consideration.”
Case title: M/S Arjun Engineering Co. v. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17680/2025
The Delhi High Court has said that granting mere one-day notice to an assessee for attending personal hearing with respect to proposed GST demands amounts of 'infraction' of natural justice.
The observation was made by a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Saurabh Banerjee while hearing Petitioner-firm's challenge to dismissal of its appeal against demand on the ground of it being barred by delay.
Case title: M/S Ganga Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16741/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to grant one more opportunity to a septuagenarian woman, who failed to appear for personal hearing in connection with ₹1,95,11,160 demand raised against her firm.
The Petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm, who has a dealership agreement with M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in respect of domestic & commercial Liquified Petroleum Gas for a period of 10 years.
Case title: Tarun Arora v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16724/2025
The Delhi High Court recently allowed an air traveller to prefer a time-barred appeal against confiscation of gold by the Customs Department, upon his arrival from Thailand.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain said, “the Petitioner cannot be rendered completely remediless in this matter as he may have proceeded on the legal advice.”
Case title: Mohammad Rashid v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16137/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the six-month extension contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 for issuance of a show cause notice after detention of goods by the Customs must be issued before expiry of the initial six-month window.
For context, Section 110 deals with Seizure of goods. It stipulates that where any goods are seized, and no notice is given within six months of the seizure, the goods shall be returned. Provided that the Principal Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months.
Case title: Gulfam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15791/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that statements made by an assessee to the Customs Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, upon seizure of its goods, is not admissible as evidence in court of law.
“Statements under Section 108 would not be admissible in evidence,” said a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain.
Case title: Pavneet Oberoi v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16345/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the Show Cause Notice or the personal hearing have been waived via an oral waiver.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain was dealing with a challenge to detention of Petitioner's gold chain weighing 54 grams.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Customs For “Harassing” Companies Importing Body Massagers
Case title: Techsync v. The Superintendent Of Customs Siib Acc Imports And Ors (and connected petition)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3542/2025 (and connected petition)
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for “unnecessarily harassing” two entities involved in import of body massagers.
Petitioners' import goods were confiscated for alleged mis-declaration of sex toys as body massagers. While ordering their provisional release, the Court had previously asked the Department to come up with a uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of such products.
Case Title: Navin Road Lines Vs. Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case No: W.P(C) No. 5464/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that where the Service Tax portal had become non-functional after the migration to the GST regime, the taxpayer cannot be compelled to make the mandatory pre-deposit strictly under the Service Tax ledger for maintainability of an appeal. The Court observed that once the deposit has already gone to the Government exchequer under the Excise Head.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a writ petition filed by Navin Road Lines, challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) refusing to entertain the Service Tax appeal on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit was not made under the Service Tax head, even though the assessee had already deposited ₹1,49,190 under the Excise category.
Case title: Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17699/2025
The Delhi High Court has slammed the GST authorities for cancelling the registration of Imagine Marketing Ltd., the parent company of smart wearables brand boAt, without considering the company's replies.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further criticised the GST Appellate Authority, which upheld the cancellation in a 'cavalier' manner. The judges remarked, “The present petition reveals a sad situation where a reputed company is being made to deal with an unjustified cancellation of its GST registration…There is no reason given in the impugned order as to why the documents filed by the Petitioner were not considered, except stating that your reply is not considerable…An Adjudicating Authority has to show basic fairness, especially in the case of companies which are regular tax payers and who have filed the replies in time along with the requisite documents.”
Case title: Yatin Miglani v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17371/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that though Section 128A(4A) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes that appeals “shall” be decided within six months, the timeline is applicable only where it is possible to do so.
Perusing the language in which the provision is couched, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “...it uses the word 'shall'. However, the provision also stipulates that the said period is to be adhered where it is possible to do so.”
Long-Pending GST Refund Appeals Hurt Businesses: Delhi High Court To Appellate Body
Case title: IDP Education India Private Limited v. Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17694/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that long pendency of GST appeals seeking tax refund can hurt financial front of businesses.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing the plea of a foreign education consultancy company, whose appeals for tax refund have been pending since four long years.
Case Name: J M Jain Prop SH Jeetmal Choraria vs. UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16754/2025
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition has upheld Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the GST Department which was based on an intelligence, by the Income Tax Department
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held the challenge to the SCN as 'premature' and noted existence of a clandestine server that revealed a parallel accounting system and modus operandi of the Petitioner. The High Court deliberated upon GST evasion of more than Rs. 88 crores through suppressing income, dual books, underpriced invoices, statutory audit records, digital devices including WhatsApp communication as set out in the Show Cause.
Case title: Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17500/2025
The Delhi High Court recently said that a private consultancy providing marketing services to a foreign university is prima facie covered by its decision in Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited (2025).
Vide the said decision, the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain had held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.
Delhi High Court Condones Company's Delay In Filing GST Appeal On Ground Of Director's Illness
Case title: Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its Managing Director Siddhartha Jain v. Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16974/2025
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay made by a company in challenging the GST demand of over ₹75 lakhs, on grounds of illness of its Director.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, after considering the facts of the case and on the basis of the medical records, were of the view that the lapse was “bonafide”.
Case Detail: South East Asia Company vs. Superintendent, CGST
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17469/2025
The Delhi High Court has allowed the filing of a consolidated appeal in a matter where a 'common and single' order was issued, although the demand pertained to multiple financial years.
In an order dated November 18, 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain allowed the Petitioner to take recourse to a single consolidated appeal against consolidated GST demands raised via one order while stating that whether Section 74 was correctly invoked was a matter for appeal.
Case Title: Vaneeta Impex Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) 15169/2025 & CM APPL.62228/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that when a taxpayer has already deposited the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for the same disputed tax amount before the State GST Appellate Authority, the Central GST authorities cannot insist on another separate pre-deposit for the same amount while filing a second appeal.
The Bench stated that the law does not permit duplication of pre-deposit for the same tax demand, and therefore the taxpayer should be allowed to file an appeal without paying again.
Case title: MS Jamil Trading Co Thrg Proprietor Mr Jamil Ahmed v. Union Of India Thrg The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10513/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticised the GST Authorities for issuing a “strange” personal hearing notice to an assessee, which said that the assessee need not attend the hearing as the notice is issued only for the purpose of uploading final order.
“The personal hearing notice is also quite strange to say the least that no personal hearing was granted before the Commissioner Appeals but a hearing was fixed for uploading of the order. Such a practice is inexplicable and deserves to be re-looked at as no useful purpose is served by giving a personal hearing for the purpose of uploading an order,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar said.
Case title: Monish Kansal Through Spa Ritik Agnihotri v. Commissioner Of Custom & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14621/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the high-value Rolex watch of a NRI, citing Supreme Court's ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017). In the said judgment, the top court had held that foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “The Petitioner being a permanent U.S. resident, this matter would be covered clearly by the decision of the Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani.”
Case title: Monish Mohammed v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2376/2024
The Delhi High Court recently permitted a labourer, working in the middle-east, to redeem gold bars confiscated by the Customs Department, after a four-year delay.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar took note of the Petitioner's financial status, which purportedly prevented him from paying the redemption fine in time.
Case title: Sanchit Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs (and connected matter)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10380/2025 (and connected matter)
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs on two Petitioners who falsely claimed that their old gold jewellery was seized by the Customs Department upon their arrival from Dubai.
On production of the gold items before it, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “it is clear that the gold items are not used gold jewellery of the Petitioners, and the same are absolutely brand new jewellery, which is stated to have been purchased by the Petitioners in Dubai and were being brought to India.”
Case title: Javed Ali Gouse v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15765/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot make a passenger or his lawyer sign an undertaking for waiver of show cause notice or personal hearing, when they appear for appraisement of seized articles.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar made the observation while dealing with an NRI's plea, whose gold chain was seized by the Customs on his arrival from Saudi Arabia.
Case title: M/S Eves Fashion v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17991/2025
In a rare instance of relief, the Delhi High Court has directed the GST Department to restore the registration of a trader, cancelled over three years ago, citing the medical issues and dispute with the Chartered Accountant which prevented it from acting earlier.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Mini Pushkarna observed, “The present case presents a peculiar set of facts, where the Petitioner has had medical reasons and a dispute with his Chartered accountant, which led to GST Registration being cancelled. Although under ordinary circumstances, the Court is not inclined to condone delay, the present case indicates that the Petitioner is a bona fide trader who intends to continue his business and requires his GST Registration to be restored for the said purpose.”
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi vs. TC Global India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: SERTA20/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that TC Global, operating as an App-based platform offering admission support solutions like promotional and marketing services, advertisements, roadshows, fairs, counselling to foreign universities, against payment in foreign exchange would qualify as 'Export of Service' instead of 'Intermediary Service'.
In a judgment dated November 28, 2025, the Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar affirmed CESTAT Delhi order that held Respondent not liable to service tax as an 'intermediary' in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. On the aspect that activities were promotional or marketing and not arranging admissions as 'agent' the High Court explained how a consistent legal position had been set by the decisions of Global Opportunities, Ernst &Young Limited, K.C. Overseas wherein Supreme Court has dismissed the challenge by Department.
Case title: Roovi v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9063/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging confiscation of an air travellers' gold jewellery by the Customs, citing disputed ownership of the gold.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “The foundational facts of the petition itself would be different in as much as the detention receipt has been issued only to one lady but the gold is claimed by three ladies. The ownership of these bangles would have to be determined. These issues cannot be gone into in a Writ petition as these are disputed questions of fact.”
Case title: Nazarmammet Nuryyyalev v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13936/2023
The Delhi High Court has condoned the delay of three years by a Turkmenistanian national in redeeming his gold jewellery from the Customs Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar granted the relief noting that “the Petitioner had visited India for medical treatment of his wife and the gold jewellery was for payment of the same, as also the fact that the Petitioner is not a habitual offender”.
Case Name: Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication)
Case No. : W.P.(C) 12619/2025
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition pertaining to service of notice through speed post where delivery reports could not be found, sets aside ex-parte demand order creating a demand to the tune of Rs. 1 crore.
In an order dated November 24, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar examined whether notices for personal hearing (Jan–Mar 2024) were properly served. On the aspect of service of notice, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority since Petitioner was 'not heard' and amount deposited was 'higher' than pre-deposit amount.
Case title: Manpar Exim INC v. Additional Director, DGGI And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18204/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that pre-SCN Consultative Notice prima facie serves no purpose in large-scale GST fraud cases involving multiple entities and a complex maze of transactions.
Pre-SCN consultation was mandatory under Rule 142 (1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It prescribed that a proper officer shall, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer.
Case title: M/S A V Metals Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner CGST & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18230/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the GST Department to exercise caution when mentioning financial year, other relevant dates in the show cause notices and orders issued by it to a taxpayer.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar sounded the note of caution after coming across a case where the authority inadvertently mentioned the due date for filing reply to the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner as 28th August, 2025, instead of 28th August, 2024.
Case title: Dhruv Mittal v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12774/2025
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for repeatedly delaying implementation of its orders for release of articles seized from passengers arriving from abroad.
Calling out the authority's “delaying tactics”, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar warned of “stringent action” along with imposition of costs on errant officials.
Case Title: Clyde Pumps Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4400/2022
The Delhi High Court held that legitimate transactional Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied when the assessee was unable to file TRAN-1 due to a GST portal glitch during the shift to the GST regime. The bench noted that since the form could not be filed in time, the distribution could not take place as per Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules within one month.
The bench, consisting of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, stated that due to a glitch in the GST portal, the assessee could not file the form TRAN-01, and since the form could not be filed in time, the distribution could not take place as per Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules within one month. Hence, the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit of the ITC due to mere technical glitches or transitional creases which were ironed out subsequently.
Case Detail: National Fregrance vs. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court in a matter involving export of mouth freshner/pan masala, where two differing Test Reports were issued and refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) was denied, has flagged validity of Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) test reports.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain were hearing writ petitions filed by Exporters/Petitioners of tobacco products including pan masala and mouth fresheners who had challenged the letter issued by Customs directing not to issue IGST refund basis test report classifying their product as Gutka . The Petitioners put forth that second test report which arrived at a conclusion that products imported were 'Gutka' and not 'Mouth Freshners Pan Masala' was not tenable in absence of drawl of fresh samples.
Case Detail: Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (Refund), Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) & ORS.
The Delhi High Court is set to hear a plea by Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) over denial of an estimated refund of over Rs. 900 crores of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Customs duty on re-imported aircraft parts that were repaired abroad. The Customs Writ Petition filed on December 11, 2025 was mentioned before a Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain.
Delhi High Court Quashes ₹45.36 Crore GST Demand Against NBCC After Finance Ministry Clarification
Case Title: NBCC (India) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi South
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a Rs 45.36 crore GST demand raised against NBCC (India) Ltd, a state-owned construction and project management company under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, in connection with the redevelopment of East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain set aside the demand after relying on a clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance, which stated that the Union Ministry itself was the principal supplier of leasing services from the project and that NBCC acted only as its implementing agency.
Case Detail: JK India (Fabs) vs. Union of India
Case No.: W.P.(C)-14644/2022
The Delhi High Court in a matter where importer could not avail Infrastructure Cess exemption due to technical glitch, has directed the Customs Department to re-assess and refund the excess Infrastructure Cess of ₹55,876.29 paid by the Petitioner on imported electrically operated golf carts.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, observed that since Electronically Operated Golf Carts qualified for exemption from payment of Infrastructure Cess, the excess amount paid cannot be held back.
Case Name: Manikjeet Singh Kals vs. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the adjudication process in a matter involving validity of a Show Cause Notice which was signed by an Officer, but portal reflected the same under the name of another Officer.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain relegated the Petitioner to avail remedy of appeal against order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Delhi (South), CGST before the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram. The Delhi High Court observed that when there were multiple parties involved and Show Cause Notices have to be adjudicated, the Adjudicating Authority was fixed on the basis of the jurisdiction which has the highest tax demand.
Case Detail: MD. Aniqul Islam VS. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Delhi
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Writ Petitions challenging GST Summons issued by the Enforcement Agency, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) alleging clandestine trading of tobacco on 'merits'.
In a judgment delivered on December 16, 2025, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, deliberated on the interplay between Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Delhi High Court made observations on how 'Summons' for the purpose of 'Inquiry' shall be deemed 'Judicial Proceeding'.
Case title: Varner Retail Services South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Division - Okhla, Central Goods And Service Tax (Delhi South) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12049/2023
The Delhi High Court dismissed a retail business' plea seeking benefit of government's tax amnesty scheme for a second show cause notice issued to it post the cut-off date, in pursuance of the first SCN.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain clarified that mere reference to earlier SCN doesn't make subsequent SCN eligible under Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDR Scheme).
Case Name: Aggarwal Construction Co. Through Its Proprietor Mr.Sanjeev Aggarwal vs. Commissioner CGST
In yet another writ petition, concerning works contract services provided to Delhi Jal Board, where its status as a 'Local Authority' was called-into-question, the Delhi High Court has stayed the summary Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising, Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted that few similar disputes relating to whether when rendering works contract services to Delhi Jal Board, the Construction Company treated it as a 'Local Authority' and paid GST at concessional rate of 12%.
Case title: M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2281/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the GST Department cannot raise fresh demands for a period prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, after the resolution plan has been approved by the NCLT.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain held, “no demand can be raised after the resolution plan has been approved ,in respect of a period prior thereto.”
Case title: M/S Truespices India Inc v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18966/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs authorities to consider releasing the bank guarantee of a city-based pan masala exporter, forfeited after conflicting lab reports about adulteration of its export products with tobacco.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that when no objections were found in the first lab test report (CRCL), “the circumstances which warranted the issuance of the second CRCL report are completely unknown and it does not specify as to why the same were issued.”
Case title: Mohit Mann v. UoI
Case no.: REVIEW PET. 621/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that under the garb of attending weddings where wearing gold jewellery is a common affair, a foreigner of Indian origin cannot be permitted to bring half kg gold jewellery to India.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar further added that there was no explanation for the Petitioner, a US citizen, to bring 17 high value mobile phones (iPhones) to India and walk through the green channel.
Case title: Navneet Bansal v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4723/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the precedents barring invocation of writ jurisdiction in cases involving complex GST/ ITC transactions equally apply to cases of fraudulent CENVAT Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “This Court has consistently taken the view that in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC, ordinarily, the Court would not be inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction…In such cases, it would be necessary to consider the burden on the exchequer as also the nature of impact on the GST regime, and balance the same against the interest of the Petitioners, which is secured by availing the right to statutory appeal. In the opinion of this Court, the same shall be applicable to cases of CENVAT Credit.”
Can GST Be Levied On Medicines Supplied During In-Patient Treatment? Delhi High Court To Examine
Case Detail: Escorts Heart Institute And Research Centre Limited vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit
The Delhi High Court will examine whether GST can be demanded on medicines and consumables supplied to patients as part of inpatient treatment.
The court issued notice in a writ petition filed by Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis Healthcare, challenging a GST demand of Rs 6.66 crore, along with interest and penalty.
Case title: M/S J.K. Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sh. Jai Kishan Bansal v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8293/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in cases involving multiple noticees, adjudication has to be done by a single commissionerate, depending upon the highest monetary demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “This Court is of the opinion that in cases involving multiple noticees, the adjudication cannot be done by different commissionerates and the commissionerate is decided, depending upon the monetary demands that are proposed to be raised and the manner in which the investigation would have proceeded.”
Case title: M/S Guru Kirpa Enterprises v. Office Of The Commissioner Of Customs (Export)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17289/2025
The Delhi High Court has disapproved of the Customs Department mentioning the name of such officer in the order who communicated it to the party, instead of the officer who actually passed the order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Orders which are passed have to be signed by the Officials who pass the said orders. The communication of the same can be done by anyone else but the name and designation of the Official who is actually passing the order has to be reflected in the order or in any other communication like a Show Cause Notice, failing which there is no way of knowing as to who has passed the order.”
Performance Incentives Earned By Advertising Agency From Media Firms Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise Delhi Iv Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate v. M/S Nexus Alliance Advertising And Marketing Pvt Ltd
Case no.: SERTA 36/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the incentives received by an advertising agency from media firms for achieving benchmark targets is not susceptible to levy of service tax.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “achieving targets or revenue benchmarks are part of the service that is already being rendered and since there is no additional service to the media house, it cannot be held that the incentives which are given by the media houses would be liable to service tax as it constitutes a 'business auxiliary service'.”
Case Name: ICICI Bank Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
In yet another writ petition by ICICI Bank, the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to ICICI Bank in a demand pertaining to charged levied by the Bank for not maintaining a Minimum Average Balance (MAB).
As is the norm in the banking sector, while opening a bank account, the customer signs an Account Opening Form post which the banking relationship is activated. One of the conditions set out in the Form is that the customer must maintain a MAB in its account.
Case title: Eastern Broadcast Solutions Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Import) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3434/2017
The Delhi High Court recently upheld the import duty imposed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission on a company authorised by BCCI to provide broadcast equipment and associated services for covering the Indian Premier League in 2012.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that under normal circumstances, this duty would have been liable to be refunded to the Petitioner as the import was merely temporary in nature.
Case title: Sayara v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18588/2025
The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for wasting public resources by withholding seized goods despite an adjudication order already having directed its unconditional release, eventually leading to avoidable litigation.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The present is a case which shows how the resources of the Customs Department are completely being wasted away in such matters.”
Case title: Pranij Heights India Pvt Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14733/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department need not communicate to an importer that the time for adjudicating a show cause notice issued to it has been extended by virtue of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “usually, the Customs Department ought to intimate any extension which is granted, to the parties concerned. But this would not be a fatal error in the present case as the communication of the same is not mandated in the provision, i.e., Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.”
Title: Kapil Madan v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the authorities must provide exemption from GST on air purifiers, considering the air pollution situation in the national capital as an “emergency.”
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a PIL to declare air-purifiers as “medical devices” and remove imposition of 18% GST on them.
Case title: M/S RR Fashion v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 19145/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because DRI headquarters or Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) are located in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction upon it to deal with Customs disputes arising in Tamil Nadu.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar made the observation while dealing with the case of Petitioners, situated in Chennai, but challenging seizure memos in Delhi on the ground that its goods were tested at CRCL, Delhi.