High Court of Delhi
Gaurav Jain v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone
For assessee
W.P.(C) NO. 8414 OF 2026
High Court of Delhi
W.P.(C) NO. 8414 OF 2026
Where SCN quantified penalties against petitioners under section 122(1A) before substituted proviso to section 107(6) mandated 10% pre-deposit for penalty- only appeals, right of appeal vested when SCN was issued and appeals arising from such SCN are governed by pre-amended provision, and so 10% pre-deposit requirement would not apply
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
GSTAT Raipur
Where scrutiny of e-way bills and subsequent proceedings led to disputed liability for two invoices, and Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief for one invoice (GST-1399) and sustained demand for another (GST-125), with respondent not challenging relief on GST-1399 before Tribunal, only GST-125 remained in controversy, leaving relief on GST-1399 undisturbed and outside Tribunal’s purview. GST: Where assessee, accused of duplicate e-way bill generation and non-payment, specifically requested a personal hearing and submitted defence, adjudicating authority confirmed demand without granting post-reply hearing or giving reasoned decision, such order violated statutory mandate for opportunity of hearing and duty to record reasons, hence original adjudication was vitiated for non-compliance with legal requirements. GST: Where dispute survived for single invoice with two e-way bills for same vehicle, non-cancellation was admitted and no primary records or evidence were produced to prove asserted system glitch, appellate proceedings could not cure breach of statutory personal hearing at original stage, warranting limited remand for fresh determination after affording statutory hearing and considering primary evidence. GST: Where demand was confirmed on duplicate e-way bills against same invoice with unpaid tax alleged, and cancellation of the second e-way bill was raised in appeal, reference by appellate authority to statutory cancellation mechanism did not introduce a new ground, since existence and non-use of cancellation window was relevant to assess appellant's defence of unintentional duplication.…
GSTAT Raipur
Where appellants challenged ex parte orders based on allegedly seized evidence and appellate authority dismissed appeals through identical, non-reasoned orders without dealing with seven distinct grounds or cited authorities, such non- speaking orders failed to exercise appellate jurisdiction and breached principles of natural justice, thus, considering foundational infirmities and ensuring fair opportunity, matter was to be remanded to original adjudicating authorities
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-payment of 10 percent pre- deposit despite entire disputed tax already deposited during investigation, such dismissal was unjustified and writ petition was allowed as relief confined to procedural ground, with remand to Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, without addressing merits of original dispute. GST: Where appeal against adjudication order was dismissed solely on ground that copy of impugned order filed was not self-certified, such defect was curable and opportunity should have been granted to cure it, hence straightway dismissal was unsustainable and appeal deserved consideration on merits after opportunity to remove deficiency