Select Five judgments on #DGGI

Select Five judgments on #DGGI

Thoughts, Insight and Research by: Abhishek Raja Ram, 9810638155

1. Where the petitioner was repeatedly threatened and intimidated and coerced to deposit Rs. 1 crore without any show-cause notice or determination of the amount due, revenue should not accept any amount without following the procedure under sections 73, 74, and 79.

Delhi High Court in Sahil Jain vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI

(2023) 156 Taxmann Com 525

2. The court held that the petitioner's arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act for alleged ITC evasion was unjustified as there was no prima facie evidence necessitating detention, and the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation. The petitioner was granted interim #bail with conditions.

Gauhati High Court in NATWAR KUMAR JALAN Vs THE UNION OF INDIA

2024-VIL-1395-GAU

3. Where, respondent-DGGI had issued show-cause notice regarding alleged inadmissible ITC availed by assessee and had blocked amount from ITC available in assessee’s Electronic Credit Ledger, since one year period had expired, restriction that was imposed would lapse in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017.

Bombay High Court in Seya Industries Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra

(2024) 88 GSTL 201

4. Since arrest procedures which include furnishing of written grounds and meaningful communication, were not followed as per Section 69(2), petitioner’s arrest was illegal and remand order was to be set aside.

Delhi High Court in Kshitij Ghildiyal vs #DGGI

(2024) 25 CENTAX 267

5. Validity of a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act for tax evasion. DGGI, Haryana GST Intelligence, and CGST Assistant Commissioner conducted parallel proceedings. The petitioner allegedly availed excess ITC not shown in GSTR-2A.

The court ruled that issuing and dropping a notice under Section 73 doesn't stop Section 74 proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner demanded tax, while DGGI only queried with no Section 74 action. Fraud allegations were evident in the notice. HCL Infotech case was not applicable. Petition dismissed, allowing tax authorities to act under the Act.

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

(2024) 10 TMI 1611

Thanks & Regards

Abhishek Raja Ram

9810638155