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 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.
High Court held that a final assessment order passed without awaiting DRP directions violates section 144C. Such non-compliance rendered the assessment order non est and liable to be quashed.
The High Court set aside GST assessment and appellate orders where the date for personal hearing was fixed on the same day as the reply deadline. It held that such procedure violates principles of natural justice.
The High Court allowed restoration of GST registration cancelled for six months’ non-filing of returns. It held that authorities must consider revocation if the taxpayer clears dues with interest and late fees as per Rule 22(4).
The Court dealt with a GST dispute where the appeal period had expired due to uncertainty over Section 168A proceedings. It condoned the delay and allowed the appeal to be heard on merits without limitation objections.
The court ruled that invoking an inapplicable statutory provision vitiates revision. Proper identification of the governing section is mandatory before exercising revisional powers.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision restricting disallowance on alleged bogus purchases to 6 percent. It held that the issue was already settled in the assessee’s own earlier year and raised no substantial question of law.
