Delhi High Court held that absolute confiscation as ordered is justifiable in view of import of Areca Nuts below Minimum Import Price condition. Accordingly, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution not warranted and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
Delhi High Court held reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be initiated merely on an internal audit objection. Absence of new tangible material made reopening invalid.
The Court ruled that reopening based solely on an audit objection amounts to change of opinion if the issue was previously examined. Without fresh tangible material, reassessment proceedings are unsustainable.
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.
