The Delhi High Court held that one of the meetings relied upon for automatic vacation of the petitioner’s seat was convened without proper notice under Regulation 142. Consequently, the ICAI communication declaring the seat vacant was quashed.
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer was given less than one effective working day to respond to additional queries. The Court held that such truncated timelines violated principles of natural justice.
The Delhi High Court held that a second provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act cannot be sustained when there is no change in circumstances. The Court ruled that repeated attachment orders after expiry of the first order violate the statutory safeguard under Section 83(2).
The High Court clarified that completed assessments do not abate upon search proceedings because no assessment proceedings remain pending. However, the earlier assessment loses enforceability after a fresh Section 153A assessment is passed.
The Delhi High Court held that CBDT Circular dated 18.11.2024 clearly prescribed a maximum period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year for seeking condonation of delay. Since the application for AY 2020-21 was filed after 31.03.2024, the Court upheld its rejection as time-barred.
The Delhi High Court held that income tax returns and taxable income details are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court ruled that such information cannot be disclosed merely because it is sought in a matrimonial dispute.
The issue involved alleged failure to pass on input tax credit benefits. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh factual determination by the tribunal.
The issue concerned whether the tribunal acted beyond the High Court’s earlier remand directions. The Court granted interim protection and restrained coercive action pending further hearing.
The Court examined whether reassessment notice issued beyond limitation was valid. It held that notices issued after expiry of the six-year limit under the old regime are barred and liable to be set aside.
The court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that an effective appellate remedy was available under the GST law. It emphasized that factual disputes and corrigendum validity must be examined through statutory appeals, not writ jurisdiction.
