The Delhi High Court rejected a writ petition by an exporter, holding that prior State GST proceedings over input tax credit do not automatically bar separate Centre-led DGGI proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act when the subject matter differs.
The DGGI’s consolidated Section 74 notice spanning multiple financial years is not automatically invalid for covering several years.
Similarity in taxpayer, financial year, or ITC amount alone is insufficient to prove identity of subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
Delhi HC Holds Prior State GST Proceedings Don't Automatically Bar DGGI Proceedings on ITC --> Powerd By SAG INFOTECH We Would Like To Send You Push Notifications. The applicant, Sanskriti Exim Private Limited, exported readymade garments and was investigated for alleged fake ITC taken on invoices issued via non-existent or fictitious entities. The allegation was that such ITC was utilised for the payment of IGST on exports and the subsequent claiming of IGST refunds.
Section 74, covering multiple financial years, could not be deemed to be without jurisdiction solely on that ground. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. Also, note that we don't provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries.
Subsequently, in July 2024, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) issued a comprehensive notice under Section 74 proposing the recovery of ITC amounting to ₹7,81,78,980, along with applicable interest and statutory penalties. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that State GST authorities had already initiated proceedings on the alleged wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) for substantially the same period, rendering the subsequent DGGI action barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Case Title Sanskriti Exim Private Limited vs.
The Delhi High Court stated that the mere fact of the same taxpayer, the same financial year, and the same amount of input tax credit is insufficient to prove that the GST proceedings initiated by the State and the Centre relate to the “same subject matter” under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Shri Krishna […] The po
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings emerging from a GST audit are different from the adjudicatory proceedings initiated u/s of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar refused to interfere with an SCN issued to a pharmaceutical di
The Gujarat High Court has said that tax authorities cannot refuse ITC on a transaction on which tax was not levied initially. A bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati has given the ruling while setting aside a GST demand against Kor Chems over credit claimed on the acquisition of leasehold righ
The Ernakulam Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has mentioned that the refund of the unused ITC cannot be refused based on ineligibility unless the credit is disallowed via proceedings under the provisions of the GST law. A Bench, Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Rama
The Rajasthan High Court has maintained the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that actual tax payment by the supplier is a valid condition for claiming ITC. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar dismissed Sumetco Alloys Private Limi
The GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has said that electronic gift vouchers (EGVs) can be a mode of passing on a GST rate reduction, where they furnish customers with a direct monetary credit without conditions, expiry, or usage restrictions. The ruling came in proceedings involving Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd., accused of fa
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.