Delhi HC directs reconsideration of GST cancellation for Pihu Enterprises. Prior proceedings cannot block cancellation but liabilities remain for past statutory violations.
Delhi High Court held that suspension of GST registration alleging non-compliance with rule 86B of CGST Rules not justified as assessee deposited required amount. Thus, petition allowed and direction given for restoration of GST registration.
Held that the export of services by the petitioner is an aspect which is neither disputed nor doubted. The only objection which is raised and which constitutes the basis for denial of refund is the remittance by VGSL to the bank account of the Bangalore office.
The petitioner was principally aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20 December 2023 which created a demand for the period 01 July 2017 to 25 July 2018 in respect of non-payment of IGST on reinsurance services.
The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A the Income Tax Act, 1961 impugning an order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.185/Del/2023 in respect of the assessment year 2013-14.
Delhi High Court held that cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard is unjustified. Accordingly, order cancelling GST registration set aside.
Delhi HC rules that past tax liability can’t justify denying GST registration cancellation. Process application while ensuring any tax dues remain payable.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as PCIT already decided the matter in favour of the assessee while invoking revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act. According, reassessment action quashed.
Delhi HC sets aside GST registration cancellation due to vague show cause notice lacking specific reasons. The court emphasizes natural justice principles.
Delhi High Court dismisses the petition challenging statutory bail granted to Adesh Jain in a ₹200 crore fake GST invoice case. Legal provisions under Section 167(2) upheld.
