The issue involved an additional tax demand on unbilled revenue. The Court found that the authority failed to consider the reply and remanded the matter for fresh review.
The issue concerned release of ₹58 lakh seized during GST search. The Court disposed of the petition after authorities agreed to release the amount within ten days, while allowing further legal action if required.
The Court declined interference as proceedings were already initiated by both departments. Petitioners were directed to respond to notices through proper channels.
The Court held that the impugned order should be challenged through statutory appeal. Writ jurisdiction was not invoked due to the availability of an effective remedy.
The Court ruled that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively without proper application of mind. The order was quashed for lack of objective reasoning.
The Court held that cancellation based on reasons not mentioned in the SCN is unsustainable. The retrospective cancellation was modified to align with procedural fairness.
The Court held that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively unless the show cause notice clearly proposes such action. Orders exceeding the scope of the notice are legally unsustainable.
The Court held that retrospective cancellation requires clear justification and cannot be applied mechanically. In absence of reasons, the effective date was revised to the show cause notice date.
The High Court set aside demand orders after confirming that the Input Tax Credit had been reversed prior to issuance of the show cause notice. It held that this fact required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
Delhi High Court held that it would be unreasonable to deny Export Promotion Capital Goods [EPCG] benefit merely because of non-submission of Bills of Export [BOE] as proof of discharge of export obligation since there was collateral evidence of discharge of export obligation.
