The Court refused to intervene against an SCN combining several financial years, noting that such consolidation is permitted under Sections 73 and 74. Since an appellate remedy existed, the assessee was relegated to appeal, with extension of time due to the pending writ. Recovery actions and attachments were set aside subject to filing the appeal.
Chauhan Kirana Trading Vs Government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court) The petitioner challenged an order dated 5 April 2024 issued by the Sales Tax Officer for the period April 2018 to March 2019, raising a demand of ₹11,98,884. The petitioner also challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 27 December 2023 and […]
The High Court remanded the assessment order after finding the petitioner was unaware of the SCN and did not attend a personal hearing. The matter will be reconsidered after the petitioner files a reply and a fresh hearing is conducted.
The Court held that a provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year under Section 83 and ordered release of the account with a requirement to maintain a ₹10 lakh minimum balance.
The Delhi High Court upheld ITAT’s order, ruling that no incriminating material was seized, and investor companies had sufficient net worth. Additions under Sections 68 and 153A were not justified.
The court held that the challenge to the 2021 GST demand order was filed after an unjustified four-year delay. The petition was dismissed as barred by laches.
An ex-parte GST order was quashed as the SCN and reminders were not effectively communicated to the petitioner. The Delhi High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, requiring personal hearing and submission of replies. This decision reinforces procedural safeguards for taxpayers under the GST regime.
Delhi High Court held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without any incriminating material found during search. The Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal, reaffirming that additions under section 153A require evidence of undisclosed income or assets.
The Court ruled that services rendered remotely cannot create a PE because the treaty requires services furnished within India through employees. virtual presence cannot substitute physical presence without treaty amendment.
The Delhi High Court seeks an explanation for why certain GST demands were dropped despite the officer stating disagreement, highlighting procedural inconsistencies in tax assessment.
