Alternate Remedy
4 articles
Death Is Not a Bar: Delhi High Court Holds Section 93 CGST Act Permits GST Penalty Proceedings to Be Commenced Against a Legal Representative After the Taxpayer's Death
More than three years after her husband died, the GST Department issued his widow a Show Cause Notice proposing a penalty for his alleged acts. She argued Section 93 of the CGST Act only lets proceedings already begun in a taxpayer's lifetime continue after death — not begin afresh. The Delhi High Court disagreed, upheld the provision against an Article 14 challenge, and ordered the Department to explain what it is still doing with ₹15.4 lakh in seized cash.
13 min readDifferent Statute, Different Subject Matter: Delhi High Court Refuses to Let a Concluded DGGI Fraud Probe Shield a Separate Section 73 Demand
A script-services company facing a ₹10.57 crore input tax credit demand argued that a state GST officer's proceedings were barred because the Directorate General of GST Intelligence had already investigated it — and that investigation had since concluded. The Delhi High Court disagreed on every ground: the statutory appeal was never filed, the writ came two years late, and the two notices, issued under different sections for different reasons, were never the same subject matter to begin with.
13 min read629 Noticees, One Order: Delhi High Court Declines a GST Writ Challenge, Distinguishing ASP Traders on Natural Justice
When a single Order-in-Original runs to 1,881 pages and names 629 firms and individuals in an alleged fake-invoicing racket, does an individual noticee's claim that its reply was never considered open the door to a writ petition? The Delhi High Court says no — and distinguishes the Supreme Court's ASP Traders on the ground that a mass adjudication order is not the same as an unreasoned order against a single assessee.
14 min readNo Hearing, No Time to Pay: Bombay High Court Quashes a Section 74A GST Order and Fixes Personal Cost on the Officer Who Passed It
A GST demand order recited that personal hearing was 'not applicable' and was signed off while the taxpayer's sixty-day window to pay up and avoid penalty was still open. The Bombay High Court quashed it on both grounds, held the alternate remedy of a statutory appeal no bar, and ordered the department to recover its Rs. 50,000 cost from the officer who passed the order.
14 min read