The issue was whether coconut falls under the fruit category for EPF applicability. The Court held it does, emphasizing liberal interpretation to extend employee benefits.
The issue was whether GST show cause notices can cover multiple financial years in one proceeding. The Court held that Sections 73 and 74 permit consolidation using the phrase for any period, and declined interference.
The Court held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamating, non-existent entity is void. It ruled that system glitches cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
The Court held that rejection of a lower withholding certificate without reasons violates Rule 28AA. It remanded the matter for fresh consideration with a speaking order.
The Court extended interim relief to contractors as the classification of Delhi Jal Board as a local authority is under consideration. The final GST rate applicable to contracts will depend on this determination.
The Court stayed GST proceedings while examining if Delhi Jal Board qualifies as a local authority. The outcome will determine applicable GST rate on works contracts.
The Court quashed the order passed without response, allowing reconsideration after deposit and hearing. It emphasized the need for fair opportunity before adjudication.
The Court clarified that recovery actions must be confined to the assessee liable for tax. Attaching a director’s personal account without evidence of liability was held unlawful. The judgment underscores limits on recovery powers.
The High Court granted interim relief to a contractor after observing that the determination of the Delhi Jal Board’s status under the CGST Act will decide whether GST applies at 12% or 18%.
The court declined to interfere with notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 because the petition was filed after more than one and a half years. It held that the assessee should appear before the Assessing Officer and present its submissions.
