The High Court held that refunds cannot be adjusted against a demand already stayed by the Assessing Officer. It directed refund of amounts adjusted despite the assessee being treated as not in default.
The court examined allegations that an order under Section 74 was passed without supplying seized documents or digital material. The matter was adjourned for the State to clarify whether such copies could be provided.
The issue was whether further GST recovery could be initiated after interest had already been paid. The High Court granted interim protection, restraining recovery on finding a prima facie case based on prior payment.
The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration after finding that it was based solely on an invalid field visit report without witnesses or proper procedure. The ruling emphasizes that unilateral inspections cannot justify cancellation.
The Delhi High Court quashed a GST adjudication order passed without the taxpayer filing a reply or being heard. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to respond, subject to conditions.
The Tribunal held that reopening based only on generalized information about a scrip, without independent inquiry or linkage to the taxpayer, is invalid. Entire addition on alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
The Court held that refund rights accrued before the 2019 amendment to Section 54 cannot be taken away retrospectively. The key takeaway is that limitation changes cannot extinguish vested GST refund rights.
The High Court stayed reassessment proceedings after noting that the legality of Section 148 notices is under consideration before the Supreme Court. The key takeaway is that proceedings must await the apex court’s final ruling.
The court held that repeated resignation of key accounts staff constituted genuine hardship. Rejection of delay condonation under Section 119(2)(b) was set aside, directing acceptance of the belated return.
The Tribunal set aside reclassification of imported penetrating oil as adulterated diesel. It held that failure to meet diesel BIS standards and lack of proof of adulteration defeated the Revenue’s case.
