<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (1) TMI 124 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764062</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC allowed a petition challenging a GST order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, citing non-compliance with personal hearing requirements and violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner had submitted a detailed response to the original Show Cause Notice, but this was perfunctorily dismissed by the GST officer. The court noted that the Assistant Commissioner had adopted a template approach, using identical phraseology across cases, stating that replies were &quot;not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and ambiguous.&quot; This demonstrated abject non-application of mind by the officer. The court referenced a similar case involving another petitioner where identical wording was used by the same GST officer, highlighting the systematic nature of this procedural flaw. The impugned order dated 31 August 2024 was set aside for failing to meet basic standards of reasoned decision-making and natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 14:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=785615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 124 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764062</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC allowed a petition challenging a GST order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, citing non-compliance with personal hearing requirements and violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner had submitted a detailed response to the original Show Cause Notice, but this was perfunctorily dismissed by the GST officer. The court noted that the Assistant Commissioner had adopted a template approach, using identical phraseology across cases, stating that replies were &quot;not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and ambiguous.&quot; This demonstrated abject non-application of mind by the officer. The court referenced a similar case involving another petitioner where identical wording was used by the same GST officer, highlighting the systematic nature of this procedural flaw. The impugned order dated 31 August 2024 was set aside for failing to meet basic standards of reasoned decision-making and natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>