Delhi High Court held that strict adherence to the procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI Rules cannot be insisted, as the sale of the secured asset was undertaken with the unequivocal consent of the borrowers. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The Delhi High Court held that the SVLDR Scheme cannot be invoked for a show cause notice issued after 30 June 2019. Even if the notice arises from the same dispute, eligibility depends strictly on the statutory cut-off date.
The High Court refused to interfere in a penalty order involving alleged fake invoices, holding that such disputes must be examined in appeal. The key takeaway is that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised where complex factual issues and alternate remedies exist.
The High Court recalled its earlier order after finding that key facts about undeclared phones and gold were concealed. The ruling holds that writ relief cannot survive when the court is misled.
The case involved delay in export clearance and refunds due to contradictory CRCL reports. The Court directed Customs to decide representations and clarify the issue within fixed timelines.
The court held that GST demands for periods prior to insolvency resolution could not be raised after approval of the resolution plan, as such claims stood extinguished under insolvency law.
The dispute concerned whether the limitation period under Section 153C should be counted from the search date or from the date seized documents were handed over. The Court held that the handover date governs, excluding earlier assessment years from reassessment.
Delhi High Court held that summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act], is issued for gathering information and providing an opportunity to produce documents, it cannot be considered to be initiation of proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, writ dismissed as premature.
The Court held that interim protection applies where only a DRC-01 summary was issued and the core issue involves the legal status of the contracting authority.
Along with merits being covered by precedent, the Court noted a significant delay in re-filing. On both procedural and substantive grounds, the appeal was dismissed.
