Ram Ashish Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The Delhi High Court delivered its order in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration dated 21st March, 2025, which was applied retrospectively from 14th June, 2024. The petitioner, operating from premises […]
The Telangana High Court upheld cancellation of a GST registration after authorities found the declared business premises non-existent and submitted rental agreements fraudulent.
High Court found that the Tribunal’s order involved only factual analysis from earlier years, leaving no question of law. Takeaway: Factual remands do not qualify for High Court intervention.
High Court quashed a GST adjudication order where authority failed to consider petitioner’s explanation regarding alleged differences between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, remanding matter for fresh hearing.
The Court remanded the matter after finding the tax order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply or be heard. The case will be reconsidered, subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the relevant notifications.
The Court held that a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot replace statutory procedures. The gold bar seized at IGI Airport must be reviewed following proper notice and hearing.
The Court dismissed a challenge to a bank account attachment after finding material facts concealed, including ongoing investigations and alleged fraudulent ITC. The ruling affirms that objections must be raised through the statutory mechanism under Rule 159(5).
The High Court declined anticipatory bail, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace siphoned funds in a large-scale cyber fraud. The decision underscores that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when it may hinder investigation.
The Court set aside the show cause notice, Order-in-Original, and Order-in-Appeal after holding that the assessee must be given an opportunity to file a fresh reply. The matter was remitted for reconsideration from the SCN-reply stage.
The Court observed that marketing services for a foreign university prima facie constitute export of services, making the petitioner eligible for GST refund.
