The Court refused to interfere with ex-parte GST orders where the taxpayer failed to reply or attend hearings. Blaming a professional advisor was held insufficient to bypass statutory procedure.
While not deciding the validity of the disputed notifications, the High Court granted relief due to lack of hearing.The adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider the case after receiving the taxpayers reply.
The High Court remanded the matter after holding that the taxpayer was denied a fair hearing when the show cause notice and order were not properly communicated. Fresh adjudication was directed after granting an opportunity to reply.
The court examined whether disciplinary findings based on impersonation and unauthorised audits could be reopened. It upheld dismissal, holding that serious integrity breaches justified the penalty and warranted no judicial interference.
Authorities erred in treating direct consultancy services as intermediary supplies. The ruling confirms refunds where the supplier provides the main service on its own account.
The court flagged a conflict between circular instructions and ground-level officer availability. Final orders cannot be enforced without court approval.
Reassessment was struck down as no satisfaction note by the searched person’s AO was shown. The ruling reiterates that limitation cannot be bypassed through procedural shortcuts.
The Court held that while Section 194H applies to supplementary commission, no tax demand survives once agents have paid tax. Recovery was limited to interest under section 201(1A).
Delhi High Court held that an employee cannot be denied TDS credit due to the employer’s default in depositing deducted tax. The related demand and recovery were quashed.
The court addressed a demand arising from automated processing that led to double disallowance of expenses. It directed rectification through an amended return and stayed recovery until correction.
