Delhi High Court: No Double Pre-Deposit for Same GST Demand; Appeal Allowed Till Jan 2026:

Delhi High Court: No Double Pre-Deposit for Same GST Demand; Appeal Allowed Till Jan 2026 Recently, a company challenged a GST order issued by the CGST Department in the Delhi High Court, where a tax demand of Rs. 56.50 lakh plus an equal penalty was imposed for the financial year 2017-18. The company claimed that the DGST department had already imposed a higher demand of Rs. 1.19 crore on the same matter in past, and the present demand should be dismissed. The court has given the company time to file an appeal by January 31, 2026. The case has been filed by a company named Vaneeta Impex Private Limited in the Delhi High Court against the Union of India and others. The assessee challenged an Order-in-Original dated January 27, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi, North Commissionerate. Through the order, a demand amounting to Rs. 56.50 lakh was imposed on the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19.

Also Read

Gujarat High Court Examines GST ITC Reversal Within 180 Days Rule

The assessee argument is that a larger demand of Rs. 1.19 crore for the same year and same transactions has already been raised by the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Department (DGST), under Section 73 of the Central Goods and W.P.(C) 15169/2025, in the past vide order dated December 04, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ward-201, Zone-11, DGST, Delhi. The assessee has already filed an appeal challenging the same amount before the State Appellate Authority and has also paid a pre-deposit of 10% for the same. The assessee's key argument here is that two different GST departments cannot raise tax demands for the same period and same issue simultaneously, citing the Supreme Court's earlier judgement titled Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate (SLP (C) No. 6092 of 2025). On this point, the CGST department argued that this is not correct; both demands are based on two different matters and violations. One is DGST demand, based on scrutiny of returns (Section 73), and the other is CGST demand, based on fraudulent ITC claims (Section 74). Hence, the bar on double proceedings does not apply to this case.

Also Read

Supreme Court: Temporary Commercial Lull Cannot Deny Income Tax Deductions to Non-Resident Company

When the court heard the arguments of both sides, it noted that DGST had raised a demand for ITC from cancelled dealers, including from RCI Industries and Technologies, and CGST had also raised a demand for fraudulent ITC from the same dealer. Since the company has already paid a 10% pre-deposit in the DGST case, the company can file an appeal challenging the CGST order without paying any pre-deposit again. This is because the same amount cannot be taken twice as a pre-deposit. Therefore, in the final order, the company has been given time to file an appeal by January 31, 2026. The appeal must be heard on its merits and cannot be rejected for delay. The department has been directed to give the company a fair chance of hearing and send notice to the specified email and mobile number.