The dispute involved non-implementation of an accepted adjudication order for release of personal jewellery. The Court held that Customs was bound to act on its own order and directed unconditional release.
The court refused to revive a customs appeal dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit, holding that repeated attempts after long delays cannot be entertained once higher courts have rejected identical pleas.
The Court declined to rule on the validity of time-extension notifications pending Supreme Court scrutiny and directed the taxpayer to pursue a statutory appeal. The key takeaway is that adjudication orders passed after replies can be tested in appeal, with limitation protection granted.
Delhi High Court declined to interfere with an ex parte GST demand order but permitted a delayed statutory appeal. Ruling allows appeal to be heard on merits despite limitation, citing sufficient cause.
The Delhi High Court held that a draft assessment order issued against a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid. Such proceedings suffer from a substantive jurisdictional defect.
HC held that Section 28 of Customs Act does not mandate communication of an extension order for adjudication. Delayed adjudication was upheld, leaving importer to pursue statutory appeal.
The High Court held that disputes involving alleged fraudulent ITC availment should be examined in statutory appeal proceedings. Writ jurisdiction was declined, with protection granted against limitation if appeal is filed in time.
The Court held that electrically operated golf carts were exempt from Infrastructure Cess under the applicable notification. Re-assessment was directed as a prerequisite to refund where excess duty was paid due to a technical EDI error.
The Court held that provisional attachment could not continue once the underlying tax demand was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, rendering the attachment unsustainable.
The Delhi High Court quashed an ex parte GST demand order and remanded the case after finding that no effective opportunity of reply or personal hearing was granted.
