Writ Jurisdiction Article 226
4 articles
Circular, Not Notification: Delhi High Court Upholds the 'Highest Demand' Rule for Choosing a Common Adjudicating Authority in Multi-State DGGI Notices
Eight petitioners caught up in an alleged three-layer fake-invoicing chain challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi-based officer who adjudicated a composite show cause notice naming 146 noticees, arguing that only a notification, not a circular, could assign an adjudicating authority. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the 'highest demand' circular does no more than allocate business among officers already vested with pan-India jurisdiction by notification, and relegated the petitioners to their statutory appeal.
13 min readJudicial Discipline Binds the Revenue Too: Delhi High Court Quashes a GST Demand That Defied a Binding CESTAT Refund Order
Welspring Universal was handed a Rs. 76,72,000 demand for a CENVAT refund the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had already held it was entitled to keep, on limitation grounds the Tribunal had already rejected. The Delhi High Court quashed the demand, holding that a departmental adjudicating authority cannot treat a superior appellate order as though it does not exist merely because a parallel proceeding remains formally open.
14 min readFreeze Before Order, Hearing Before Extension: Patna High Court Reads GST Attachment Jurisprudence Into Section 110(5) of the Customs Act
A division bench of the Patna High Court quashed provisional attachments of a digital-marketing company's bank accounts where the department could not show a written, Commissioner-approved order preceding the freeze, and set aside extension orders passed without any hearing before the six-month period expired. Treating Section 110(5) of the Customs Act and Section 83 of the GST Act as in pari materia, the Court imported the Supreme Court's Radha Krishan Industries construction of the GST provision wholesale into the customs context, while also rebuking the department for attempting to cure the defect through a fresh order passed while the writ petition was pending.
14 min readWhose Delay Is It? Delhi High Court Holds a ₹20 Crore Customs Demand Timely Because the Assessee's Own Writ Stay Suspended the Section 28(9) Clock
GKEM International argued that a ₹20.18 crore customs demand was time-barred because its show cause notice sat in the department's 'Call Book' for years. The Delhi High Court disagreed: the delay was occasioned by the assessee's own writ petition and interim stay, which is exactly the circumstance Section 28(9A) excludes from the limitation clock — and the Call Book entry was merely the administrative record of that fact, not its source.
14 min read