HC held that, the purpose of a SCN is to enable the noticee to meet the allegations, on the basis of which an adverse action is proposed. Further, the procedure adopted by the Revenue Department is flawed and the order for cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
The petitioner claims that he apprehends that a demand of GST may be raised on him on account of fraudulent actions of the persons who have registered a firm in his name. He also claims that the said unknown persons have been filing returns without his knowledge. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner had also made a representation to the Delhi Police, which is pending action.
HC ruled that VCC, Charge sheets, suspension order would fall under purview of personal information as defined in Section 8(1)(J) of RTI Act
Delhi High Court held that extended service tax demand invoking proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act would be applicable on account of mis-statement or suppression of facts only if the same was deliberate and for the purposes of evading payment of duty.
Delhi High Court held that as per regulation 17(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018, notice for revocation of license to the customs broker is to be issued within a period of 90 days from the receipt of offence report. Order unsustainable as notice issued beyond the period of 90 days,
Delhi High Court held that failure on the part of Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) to pass an order doesn’t automatically result in allowing refund u/s. 42(1) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004.
Delhi High Court held that non-scheduled (passenger services) as defined under clause (b) of explanation to Condition no. 104 of notification no. 21/2022-CUS as amended by notification no. 61/2007-CUS doesn-t include providing air transport services to public at large on payment of published tariff.
Delhi High Court held that debarment of Haj Group Operator (HGO) was based on Income Tax Return which was later on rectified. Accordingly unsustainable order of blacklisting would not operate so as to render the petitioner disqualified in case it was to apply for enlistment as an HGO in the future years.
Delhi High Court held that the applicant is established to be a mastermind of the whole operation only on the basis of statements under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. Also period of incarceration and delay in investigation justifies a prima facie release of applicant on bail.
Delhi High Court noted that delays on the part of the respondent-department in processing the pending claims for refund result in unnecessary burden of interest on the ex-chequer. Accordingly, court directed the Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes to ensure that all pending refund claims are processed as expeditiously as possible.
