The Delhi High Court directed fresh adjudication after holding that denial of a reasonable opportunity to respond renders the GST demand unsustainable, while keeping the notification validity issue open.
The court declined to examine the merits after noting that a final adjudication order had already been passed. The key takeaway is that the petitioner must pursue the prescribed appellate remedy.
The case examined whether refunds could be blocked on the basis of a subsequent lab report issued without new samples. The court ordered early consideration of representations and possible show cause proceedings.
The High Court held that export refunds cannot be denied based on alleged excess ITC without issuing an SCN under the CGST Act. The ruling reinforces that recovery proceedings must follow statutory procedure.
The Delhi High Court rejected the Revenue’s transfer pricing appeals, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The ruling followed earlier decisions on identical issues for prior years.
The Court rejected the argument that goodwill payments amounted to prohibited fee sharing and dismissed the Revenue’s appeals.
The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹45.36 crore GST demand after the Finance Ministry clarified that Section 86 of the CGST Act imposes joint liability only for goods, not services. The ruling confirms that agents cannot be taxed for services supplied by the principal without statutory backing.
Court held that a cheque initially issued as security can mature into an enforceable liability once loan recall conditions are triggered. Disputed facts on repayment and breach must be examined at trial, not at quashing stage.
Delhi High Court held that denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit [ITC] due to non-filing of TRAN-1 not justified since the form was not filed in time due to technical glitch in the GST portal or transitional creases which were ironed out subsequently. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The High Court ruled that wilful default and pending recovery proceedings do not, by themselves, justify Look Out Circulars. Without criminal cases or proof of higher economic harm, restricting travel violates Article 21.
