Delhi High Court held that failure on the part of Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) to pass an order doesn’t automatically result in allowing refund u/s. 42(1) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004.
Delhi High Court held that non-scheduled (passenger services) as defined under clause (b) of explanation to Condition no. 104 of notification no. 21/2022-CUS as amended by notification no. 61/2007-CUS doesn-t include providing air transport services to public at large on payment of published tariff.
Delhi High Court held that debarment of Haj Group Operator (HGO) was based on Income Tax Return which was later on rectified. Accordingly unsustainable order of blacklisting would not operate so as to render the petitioner disqualified in case it was to apply for enlistment as an HGO in the future years.
Delhi High Court held that the applicant is established to be a mastermind of the whole operation only on the basis of statements under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. Also period of incarceration and delay in investigation justifies a prima facie release of applicant on bail.
Delhi High Court noted that delays on the part of the respondent-department in processing the pending claims for refund result in unnecessary burden of interest on the ex-chequer. Accordingly, court directed the Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes to ensure that all pending refund claims are processed as expeditiously as possible.
HC set aside penalty order passed by the Revenue Department on ground that order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Assessee was not afforded full opportunity to contest allegations against it. Set aside penalty order.
HC set aside the order for cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee passed by the Revenue Department on the ground that the order is not sustainable as the reply to SCN furnished by assessee was not taken into consideration by Revenue Department, directed the Revenue Department to restore the GST Registration of the assessee.
Accused admitted to have orchestrated the fake ITC fraud involving 05 fake firms, which have issued goods less invoices and passed on fraudulent input tax credit of GST amount to Rs.24 crores.
Delhi High Court held that petitioner eligible for exemption from Central Excise Duty Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 prior to 1st July 2017 is eligible for budgetary support under Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax (GST) Regime
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (HQRS.) Vs M/s. Spraytec India Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The proviso to Sub-Section (2) of 28-I of the Customs Act prescribes the CAAR from allowing any application filed for advance ruling, where question raised in the application is pending in the applicant’s case before “any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or […]
