The Court noted NCLT approval of a settlement scheme but held that existing attachment orders under PMLA would continue unless modified by competent authorities.
The Court examined whether an order rejecting a resolution plan could be appealed under the IBC. It held that appeals lie against both approval and rejection orders, directing parties to approach NCLAT instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Court held that recovery proceedings, including bank attachment, must be lifted once the statutory 10% disputed tax is deposited. The ruling clarifies that such deposit results in a deemed stay under GST law.
The Court examined whether an electronically filed GST appeal could be rejected for non-submission of a hard copy. It held that such rejection was unsustainable under Rule 108 and remanded the matter for decision on merits.
The issue was whether the Court could direct issuance of a tax clarification for an SEZ unit. The Court held that no such direction could be given while the core issue is pending before the Supreme Court.
The Court considered whether funds deposited pursuant to earlier orders could be transferred under a sanctioned settlement scheme. Holding that the NCLT-approved scheme facilitated creditor settlement without overriding criminal proceedings, the Court directed transfer of the deposit to the settlement account.
The issue concerned condonation of delay in filing an ITR under Section 119(2)(b). The court upheld rejection, holding that ignorance of law and general reasons do not amount to genuine hardship.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot proceed on vague notices lacking reasons for alleged escapement of income. Orders under Section 148A(3) and notices under Section 148 were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The issue concerned dismissal of a GST appeal on limitation grounds. The Court allowed restoration of the appeal on merits, subject to payment of costs, considering the petitioner’s age and reliance on a consultant.
The issue involved denial of ITC due to supplier’s non-payment of tax. The Court set aside the demand and ordered fresh adjudication once tax compliance was completed.
