The Court rejected the revenue’s plea that the dealer caused delay in refund processing. Interest was held payable under Sections 38 and 42 of the DVAT Act.
The Court set aside the detention order and notice after finding they were not issued and communicated within the mandatory seven-day period under Section 129, rendering the action unsustainable.
The Court held that goods accompanied by valid documents cannot be detained under Section 129 merely due to alleged misclassification, leaving such issues to assessment proceedings.
Refusing to condone delay, the Court ruled that vague personal difficulties and incorrect assumptions about remedies do not meet the threshold of sufficient cause, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court set aside retrospective GST registration cancellation after finding that the show cause notice failed to specify the default period or dues, violating natural justice.
The Court held that failure to upload the prescribed form cannot defeat a tax benefit when the option was clearly exercised in the return. Procedural lapses were directed to be regularised under Section 119(2)(b).
The court held that technical difficulties justified condonation of delay in filing the prescribed form for concessional tax. Procedural lapses could not override a valid claim made in the return.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] without providing pre-decisional hearing and without providing reasons to believe is not justifiable and hence order is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that employee’s contribution deposited after statutory due date under relevant Acts is disallowed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act even if the same is paid before filing of income tax return. Accordingly, question is decided against appellant.
The court held that amounts credited due to a clerical RTGS error cannot be retained or recovered as tax dues when they do not belong to the account holder. Recovery provisions were ruled inapplicable, and the bank was directed to refund the money to the remitter.
