<?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 (5) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769955</link>
    <description>Delhi HC held that company directors can appeal GST penalty orders under Section 107 CGST Act, which permits &quot;any person&quot; to file appeals. The court found that determining individual director liability for GST violations, including fraudulent ITC claims and non-filing of returns, requires factual scrutiny by the Appellate Authority. While directors must ensure companies avoid fraudulent activities, the specific question of who retained benefits and made decisions needs detailed examination. The court distinguished the case from a SC precedent involving an employee with no decision-making authority, noting here the directors had active roles. Petitioners were directed to file appeals within 30 days after receiving departmental communication regarding appellate procedures.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 May 2025 08:34:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769955</link>
      <description>Delhi HC held that company directors can appeal GST penalty orders under Section 107 CGST Act, which permits &quot;any person&quot; to file appeals. The court found that determining individual director liability for GST violations, including fraudulent ITC claims and non-filing of returns, requires factual scrutiny by the Appellate Authority. While directors must ensure companies avoid fraudulent activities, the specific question of who retained benefits and made decisions needs detailed examination. The court distinguished the case from a SC precedent involving an employee with no decision-making authority, noting here the directors had active roles. Petitioners were directed to file appeals within 30 days after receiving departmental communication regarding appellate procedures.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>