Delhi High Court

36,653 judgments

Year:

Akash Gupta v. Sales Tax Officer, Class II, Avato, Ward 23- Zone 2

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3580-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST adjudication order passed without considering the taxpayer's reply, directing a fresh hearing while leaving the validity of the impugned notification to the Supreme Court's decision.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant show cause notice personal hearing Section 168A CGST Act natural justice

Raj Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3605-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order for lack of personal hearing and remanded the matter, leaving the validity of the impugned notification pending before the Supreme Court.

tax appeal_allowed Significant personal hearing Show Cause Notice CGST Act 2017 Section 168A

Cobblerz Shoes v. Principal Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors.

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3604-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging GST notifications extending adjudication deadlines, leaving validity open pending Supreme Court decision and directing the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies with pre-deposit.

tax petition_dismissed Procedural Section 168A Central GST Act Validity of GST notifications Show Cause Notice Extension of time limits

B R Ceramics P Limited v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors.

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3594-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order and allowed the appeal to be heard on merits pending the Supreme Court's decision on the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the GST Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 168A GST Act Validity of GST notifications Show Cause Notice Demand order

K.S. Impex Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax & Anr.

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3592-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside ex-parte GST demand orders due to improper notice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving the validity of extension notifications pending before the Supreme Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Goods and Services Tax Show Cause Notice Section 168A GST Act Natural Justice

Salak Chand Proprietor of S K Associates v. Union of India & Ors.

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3590-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside GST demand orders passed without proper notice and hearing, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of extension notifications pending Supreme Court decision.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Goods and Services Tax Show Cause Notice Natural Justice Section 168A CGST Act

DEV ENTERPRISES v. COMMISSIONER OF DGST

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3586-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging GST show cause notice and order, allowed filing of appeal beyond limitation due to pending Supreme Court adjudication on validity of extension notifications under Section 168A of the CGST Act.

tax petition_dismissed Significant GST Act Section 168A show cause notice personal hearing

M/S Divine Creations v. AVATO, Ward 07, Delhi State Goods and Services Tax & Anr.

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3585-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to denial of proper notice on the GST portal and remanded the matter for fresh hearing, leaving the validity of the extension notification pending before the Supreme Court.

tax appeal_allowed Significant show cause notice natural justice GST portal Section 168A GST Act

Abdul Gaffar Prop. M/s Farhad Traders v. Union of India & Anr.

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3583-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST adjudication order passed without personal hearing, directing fresh consideration of the petitioner's reply, while leaving the validity of the impugned notification to the Supreme Court's pending decision.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Goods and Services Tax Section 168A CGST Act show cause notice personal hearing

N B Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors.

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3582-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside ex-parte GST adjudication orders due to procedural lapses in notice communication, remanding the matter for fresh hearing while leaving the validity of the impugned notification open pending Supreme Court decision.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant show cause notice GST portal procedural fairness Section 168A Central GST Act

Rahul Singhal Proprietor Shivalik Enterprises v. The Commissioner, Central Tax, (Delhi West) Engg. India Ltd. & Ors.

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3581-DB

Delhi High Court set aside order denying Input Tax Credit and directed fresh adjudication with personal hearing, leaving validity of GST notifications pending Supreme Court decision.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Input Tax Credit IGST Act 2017 Section 168A CGST Act show cause notice

VR Surat Private Limited v. Amit Sinha

07 May 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2020 SCC OnLine Del 301
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the seat of arbitration at New Delhi confers jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, limiting judicial scrutiny to prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration agreement seat of arbitration territorial jurisdiction Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Tata Capital Limited v. Sumo Life Care Private Limited & Ors.

07 May 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:3907
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding that judicial scrutiny at this stage is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving merits and frivolity of claims to the arbitral tribunal.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointment of arbitrator scope of judicial scrutiny prima facie arbitration agreement

Sanofi India Limited v. Union of India

07 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:3874

Delhi High Court quashed criminal complaint against Sanofi India Limited and its Managing Director for filing beyond limitation, rejecting other grounds including right to retesting and vicarious liability.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 right to retesting limitation period vicarious liability

M/S CLOUD ENTERPRISES v. CDS INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED

07 May 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:3850
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the contract.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration Act appointment of arbitrator scope of judicial scrutiny prima facie arbitration agreement

Suhavni Devi v. Union of India

07 May 2025 · Dharmesh Sharma, J. · 2025:DHC:3428

The High Court allowed compensation to the appellant for death of her son in an accidental fall from a moving train, holding him a bona fide passenger and the incident an untoward incident under the Railways Act.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Railways Act, 1989 untoward incident statutory compensation

Government of NCT Delhi v. Priya Kaim

07 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:3432-DB

The Delhi High Court held that courts cannot determine equivalence of educational qualifications or compel employers to relax prescribed eligibility criteria in recruitment, setting aside the Tribunal's order allowing a candidate's appointment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant educational qualification equivalence recruitment rules discretionary relaxation Central Administrative Tribunal

M/S LANDMARK LABELS AND ACCESSORIES LLP v. M/S WYN APPARELS & ANR.

07 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:3438-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on Haryana courts and dismissed the appeal challenging the return of plaint for lack of jurisdiction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant exclusive jurisdiction clause Order VII Rule 10 CPC Section 28 Contract Act jurisdiction

Ahmad v. Amita Singh

07 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:3767

The Delhi High Court held that CrPC, not BNSS, governs pending defamation proceedings initiated before BNSS commencement, dismissing petitions challenging summoning without BNSS notice.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant defamation summoning order Section 223 BNSS Section 531 BNSS

Abdul Gaffar v. Union of India

07 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3538-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order due to invalid service of notice on an inaccessible portal tab and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving the validity of the impugned notification pending before the Supreme Court.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST Portal Additional Notices Tab Section 168A Central GST Act