The Delhi High Court declined to rule on the validity of GST limitation-extension notifications as the issue is pending before the Supreme Court. The taxpayer was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with protection against limitation.
The Court dealt with a challenge to a confiscation show cause notice where jurisdictional confusion delayed proceedings. It directed a time-bound reply, personal hearing, and adjudication while leaving merits open.
The Court examined whether the stringent twin conditions for bail under the PMLA applied to a woman accused in a money laundering case. Holding that the statutory proviso applied, the Court granted bail, emphasizing delayed proceedings and completed investigation.
The High Court stayed GST recovery proceedings after finding that the audit report triggering the demand was issued by an officer lacking statutory authority, indicating a prima facie jurisdictional defect.
The High Court ruled that GST demands including periods before resolution plan approval are legally unsustainable and must be quashed.
The High Court set aside GST refund rejection orders after noting that Rule 96(10) was omitted without saving pending proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that inability to trace proof of dispatch of hearing notices does not automatically establish denial of personal hearing, especially in ITC fraud cases.
The court found a prima facie overlap between excess ITC due to non-reconciliation and ITC disallowed under Section 16(4), directing partial pre-deposit and fresh adjudication.
The High Court found prima facie overlap between two assessment proceedings for the same tax period. The demand was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing the taxpayer to file a reply.
The Bombay High Court set aside GST orders as they were based solely on Rule 96(10), which was omitted without a saving clause, and remanded no further action under that rule.
