The Court ruled that provisional attachment under Section 83(1) cannot continue beyond one year as per Section 83(2). The attachment order was held to have lapsed by operation of law.
The Court reaffirmed that lease rent paid for use of land qualifies as “rent” under Section 194I. Revenue’s appeals were dismissed in light of binding precedent.
The Court partly allowed the writ petition, noting that the petitioners claim was found genuine upon verification. Authorities were directed to reconsider restoration of GST registration from the original date.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval under Section 151(ii). Notices issued with approval from the wrong authority were set aside.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to factual disputes. In absence of jurisdictional defect, the matter must be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer.
The High Court held that a reassessment notice issued after expiry of the six-year period under the old regime is barred by limitation. The ruling reiterates that extended timelines under the new law cannot revive time-barred cases.
The Court set aside retrospective GST cancellation as neither the SCN nor the order recorded reasons, reaffirming that authorities must justify retrospective action.
The court accepted an undertaking to decide a pending GST refund within four weeks and flagged interest liability for prolonged delay under the CGST Act.
The Delhi High Court refused to quash the CBIC circular assigning “proper officer” functions, holding that it was issued with due authority and carries a presumption of validity.
The High Court held that Rule 86A does not permit blocking of input tax credit beyond what is available in the electronic credit ledger. Artificial negative balances were ruled to be without jurisdiction.
