The Delhi High Court upheld ITAT’s order, ruling that no incriminating material was seized, and investor companies had sufficient net worth. Additions under Sections 68 and 153A were not justified.
The Court set aside the appellate order after finding no inquiry into when the March 2022 order was uploaded, directing the authority to verify the actual upload date. The ruling clarifies that limitation must be assessed based on proven upload timelines.
The High Court held that investigation material showed prima facie involvement in unlawful tender cost increases. The ruling emphasized that such allegations warrant a full trial, not discharge.
The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application as the applicant was absconding and implicated in a fraudulent lottery cybercrime. Bail was denied considering the nature of offences under IPC and IT Act.
The court held that the challenge to the 2021 GST demand order was filed after an unjustified four-year delay. The petition was dismissed as barred by laches.
The Court held that the petitioner challenged a 7A order without first using the statutory appeal under Section 7-I. The writ was dismissed as Article 226 cannot be invoked to circumvent prescribed remedies.
The Allahabad HC held that the show cause notice under Section 74 was invalid as it did not specify fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, quashing the notice.
An ex-parte GST order was quashed as the SCN and reminders were not effectively communicated to the petitioner. The Delhi High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, requiring personal hearing and submission of replies. This decision reinforces procedural safeguards for taxpayers under the GST regime.
The Court ruled that reassessment for a pre-CIRP period cannot continue when no claim was filed during CIRP and the approved resolution plan extinguished past dues. It held that post-approval tax demands are invalid.
Delhi High Court held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without any incriminating material found during search. The Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal, reaffirming that additions under section 153A require evidence of undisclosed income or assets.
