LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Om Shankar Metal (through its Proprietor Mr. Sidhant Sharma) vs. Assistant Commissioner Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Division Delhi East Delhi, CBIC

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:8917-DBDecided 9 Oct 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 15708/2025CNR: DLHC010779382025
Justice Anil Kshetarpal · Justice Bharat Parashar

Background

A sole-proprietorship metal trading firm was issued an ex-parte GST demand order (under Section 74 of the CGST Act) alleging wrongful input tax credit claims, after a departmental audit. The firm challenged the order, arguing it was never actually given a personal hearing before the order was passed, saying the department's hearing notices were sent to the wrong email address.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held the petition was maintainable despite an available statutory appeal, since an alleged denial of a fair hearing is a recognised exception that justifies approaching the writ court directly. However, it found that which email address was actually the firm's correct, registered one was a genuinely disputed question of fact that could not be properly resolved in writ proceedings and should instead go to the Appellate Authority, along with related disputes over penalty computation and interest calculation. The Court declined to decide the merits itself, relegated the firm to its statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and separately allowed it to seek exclusion of the litigation period from the appeal's limitation clock.

Lesson Learnt

A genuine complaint of being denied a fair hearing can get a writ petition heard even when a regular appeal route exists, but the High Court will still send genuinely disputed factual questions (like which email address was on file) to the proper appellate forum rather than decide them itself, while protecting the taxpayer's right to still file that appeal on time.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Tax & Customs Law

Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Nancy Trading Company vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad

The High Court upheld the tribunal's findings, noting the appellant took no steps for roughly two years to check on his own case despite his lawyer's attempts to contact him, yet became active the moment the department froze his bank accounts. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that while delay can be condoned liberally for short periods, an inordinate delay needs a genuinely sufficient cause, and a litigant cannot simply blame his lawyer to escape responsibility for his own inaction. The appeal was dismissed.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/S Pradeep Industries & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that the entire chain of events, the seizure, the classification dispute, and the rejection of provisional release, occurred entirely at ICD Dadri, within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, and not even a small part of the cause of action had actually arisen in Delhi. Relying on an earlier Full Bench ruling of the same Court and a comparable Division Bench precedent, it held that simply having a headquarters office located in Delhi does not by itself confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court. The petition was dismissed purely for lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty for the petitioner to pursue the correct forum.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld treatment of this subsidy as a taxable revenue receipt. It applied the purpose test: the scheme had to be read as a whole to determine whether the assistance supported capital investment or the running of an established business. Here, payment tracked actual electricity charges incurred in production and was not earmarked for plant, machinery, factory construction or repayment of capital borrowing. The scheme's broad aim of industrial development did not override those operative features, and payment after production began was relevant to the overall scheme rather than decisive by itself.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/S Kuku Overseas vs. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

The Court found the petitioner's non-disclosure of the earlier adjudication order was material, since the core premise of the petition (indefinite non-finalisation) no longer held true once formal orders existed. It held the petitioner now had an effective alternate remedy, a statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, to raise all its arguments, including about delay, and declined to keep the writ petition pending just because a related Supreme Court case on delay in adjudication was ongoing. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable in its present form, with liberty to appeal.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/s Aparna Collection vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court rejected the argument that limitation under Section 74(2) must be measured from the date on Form GST DRC-01, because DRC-01 is only a summary of the show cause notice. On Section 74(10), the Court held that the statute requires the order, not the DRC-07, to be issued within the prescribed period, and that DRC-07 is a summary uploaded later under Rule 142. Because the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107, and the questions raised needed factual findings, the Court declined to decide the merits in writ jurisdiction. The petitions were disposed of, with liberty to appeal under Section 107 and to raise all contentions there, including limitation and exclusion of the time spent in these proceedings.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Others v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Another

The Supreme Court dismissed the authorities' appeals and upheld the classification accepted by the High Court. It held that, under the statutory entries at issue, classification depended on the goods' form when sold, rather than what customers might later prepare with them. The beverage entry grouped beverages with syrups, cordials, juices and other liquid preparations, and did not expressly include powders used to make drinks. Packaging instructions and general tests of popular meaning or function could not expand that clear statutory description. Because the products did not fit the specific beverage entry, they belonged in the residual category; precedents involving differently worded entries or liquid products did not change that result.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case