Delhi HC Slams GST Dept for ‘Fundamentally Flawed’ Demand on Total Turnover Instead of Actual Sales

by

The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised the GST Department for adopting a “fundamentally flawed” approach in raising a massive tax demand on the entire turnover of a company, despite having clear data on its actual disputed sales. The Court observed that when the alleged misclassification pertains only to a specific segment of turnover, the department cannot mechanically compute GST liability on total sales. Terming the adjudicating authority’s conduct as erroneous and disproportionate, the bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain held that the tax demand and the corresponding pre-deposit must be restricted only to the portion of turnover actually under dispute, and not the company’s whole business volume. This decision offers significant relief to taxpayers facing inflated GST demands due to blanket assessments.

Key Details of the Case

  1. Parties / Case Name
    • M/s IMS Mercantiles Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr.
  2. Core Issue
    • The Delhi High Court criticized the GST Department’s approach of demanding tax on the entire turnover of the company, instead of just on the portion that was allegedly misclassified / disputed.
    • Specifically, the department had treated the “combo packs” (chargers + rechargeable batteries) as misclassified under the HSN code; but though this “combo” business formed only about 3% of total turnover, GST demand was raised on 100% of turnover.
    • The court found this “fundamental flaw” in the adjudicating authority’s logic: data for actual sales (B2B and B2C) was available, but was ignored, and instead the department applied a blanket demand.
  3. Court’s Holding / Directions
    • The Court held that GST demand must be proportionate to the portion of turnover that is actually disputed; you can’t demand on the “entire turnover” if only a part is in question.
    • For the appeal: The Court directed that the pre-deposit (which is a required payment before appeal) should be calculated only on the turnover of the disputed portion (i.e., the combo packs), not on the total turnover.
    • The Appellate Commissioner (Appeals) must grant a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order.
    • The Court gave the company time up to 30 November 2025 to file the appeal; and clarified that this would not be treated as barred by limitation.
    • It also clarified that its observations are “case-specific” and do not prejudge the outcome of the final adjudication by the appellate authority.
  4. Demand Size
    • The demand raised by the GST Department was very large: over ₹250 crore, because they taxed on the full turnover rather than just the disputed portion.

Implications & Significance

  • Precedent for Proportionate Demand: This case reinforces that tax demands under GST must be proportionate and tied to the actual disputed portion, not grossed up to total turnover just because the department alleges misclassification.
  • Fairness & Natural Justice: The judgment underscores the need for reasoned orders and actual hearing. Forcing a company to pay based on total turnover when only a small part is disputed may violate principles of natural justice / fairness.
  • Ease of Appeal: By limiting pre-deposit to the disputed portion, the Court reduces the financial burden on companies wishing to appeal, making the appellate process more accessible.
  • Taxpayer Protection: This is a favorable ruling for taxpayers, especially in cases where only a subset of their business is under scrutiny. It may discourage overly aggressive, blanket GST demands by authorities.
  • Limitation on GST Authorities: The decision sends a message to GST adjudicating authorities that they cannot use “one size fits all” to demand GST on the total business just because part of the business is under dispute.

Potential Risks / Counterpoints

  • The Court has said its observations are case-specific, so this doesn’t automatically guarantee the same result in all similar cases.
  • The appellate authority (Commissioner Appeals) still has full power to re-examine facts, so demand could be confirmed again (though proportionately).

  • Tax departments may try to argue more aggressively about classification / segregation in future to resist such proportional demands.

Please share

Leave a comment