The Bombay High Court ruled that a special audit under Section 142(2A) cannot stand where the mandatory approval lacks a DIN. The absence of DIN renders the approval non-existent in law, making the entire proceedings void from inception.
The court held that rejection of IGST refund interest on jurisdictional grounds could not defeat a diligent claim and allowed the taxpayer to approach the GST appellate authority without facing limitation hurdles.
The court set aside reassessment orders and notices as the issue was already covered by an earlier judgment. Consequential proceedings were also nullified, with other rights kept open.
The court held that reopening an assessment on the same facts amounts to an impermissible change of opinion. Arbitrary second reassessment notices were quashed with ₹1 lakh costs imposed to deter harassment.
While alteration of the cheque amount is a material alteration under law, the court ruled that consent and responsibility for alteration are factual questions. The complaint was not quashed at the pre-trial stage.
The Court upheld deletion of a major addition, holding that valuation under Section 56 must follow the prescribed rles and not unrelated transaction prices.
The Court held that professional legal work does not convert a residential connection into commercial use. The excess demand raised was ordered to be refunded.
Delhi High Court held that recalling bail order in GST evasion on account of clandestine manufacture and sale of banned gutka denied since there is no perversity in the order. Further, there is nothing to show that he is a flight Risk or there is any likelihood of his influencing the witnesses or tampering the evidence.
Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercisable in absence of any perversity in the order passed by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
The court held that additions for excess stock and cash cannot be sustained when based solely on a survey statement under Section 133A, reaffirming that such statements lack conclusive evidentiary value.
